FFP is dead ( Spurs consequences)

[Delboy75]

Could absolutely stuff Newcastle if it’s enforced. I just don’t see how they can grow at a reasonable pace. Yes they will inflate revenue, but they need to offer crazy wages to get anyone up there. They might progress but it’s gonna be unbelievably slowly.

 

[Dillspur]

Could absolutely stuff Newcastle if it’s enforced. I just don’t see how they can grow at a reasonable pace. Yes they will inflate revenue, but they need to offer crazy wages to get anyone up there. They might progress but it’s gonna be unbelievably slowly.

I think it really depends on the creative sponsorship deals, who's going to decide what's "market value" and will it hold up in the courts, because you know Newcastle will take it to CAS or some other court

 

[DogsOfWar]

I think it really depends on the creative sponsorship deals, who's going to decide what's "market value" and will it hold up in the courts, because you know Newcastle will take it to CAS or some other court

Sadly, you're right.
City's dodgy deals have made them the highest turnover club in the world now )according to Deloitte) so its just a question of time until Newcastle join them.

 

[HodisGawd]

That is just so blatant. I don't quite understand this new Spiegel story breaking now about the investigation. Apparently, the PL have been investigating their finances for 3 years.

 

[Albertbarich]

City especially are cheating in plain site.

That deloite list was farcical. They don't give a shit and why would they?

The government don't care, the governing bodies are corrupt and the media lick their arse despite them blatantly cheating.

But instead sky will promote the game on Sunday like nothing is wrong.

 

[cockerel downunder]

New rule approved ?

Wow includes transfers wages and agent fees at 70% of revenue. It’s huge if they really implement this to the letter.

This new rule combined with the change to limit players out on loan will really impact Chelsea under the new owners. They will need to quickly start moving to a more sustainable model and likely need to sell a lot of their senior loan players and not be fussy about who to sell to like they usually are.

 

[Wine Gum]

UEFA have announced new Financial Sustainability regulations from June 2022

 

[Tucker]

UEFA have announced new Financial Sustainability regulations from June 2022

Well that all sounds like a bunch of toothless nothing that’ll just allow clubs like City, PSG, and now Newcastle to completely game the system.

 

[Barmby Army]

Anyone that properly understands all this shite might be able to answer this question.

Where exactly is the line drawn on what constitutes income that can be counted towards FFP? Because I've seen a lot of talk recently about how we're in a better position with regard to transfers because of the stadium income through flogging slots to the NFL, various concerts etc...all stuff that has nothing to do with football.

So what exactly separates us from teams like City who are transparently using profits from other parts of the City Group empire to bump up their football-related income and give them more breathing space with FFP? Because to my idiot mind it seems like much the same thing.

I know there are questions over whether a lot of City's income even exists, which raises a different question, but in theory if that practice was stopped then would the club be entitled to invest in a property (using club funds) for the express purpose of profiting from activities unrelated to football, and count that towards FFP because it's technically part of the club?

 

[Wig]

Interesting reading. This bit shows how well financially run and cost-controlled we are...

 

[Delboy75]

Interesting Arsenal are at 93% so 23% over the limit. That would suggest this will be their last big spend if don’t make CL. Also interesting that infrastructure is now in the FFP section, wonder how that effects Chelsea stadium plan. I think the 70% rule is decent easier to understand and has some correlation to revenue and player sales. But however you look at it we will be in a fantastic position possibly having biggest spending capacity of any club.

 

[DogsOfWar]

Anyone that properly understands all this shite might be able to answer this question.

Where exactly is the line drawn on what constitutes income that can be counted towards FFP? Because I've seen a lot of talk recently about how we're in a better position with regard to transfers because of the stadium income through flogging slots to the NFL, various concerts etc...all stuff that has nothing to do with football.

So what exactly separates us from teams like City who are transparently using profits from other parts of the City Group empire to bump up their football-related income and give them more breathing space with FFP? Because to my idiot mind it seems like much the same thing.

I know there are questions over whether a lot of City's income even exists, which raises a different question, but in theory if that practice was stopped then would the club be entitled to invest in a property (using club funds) for the express purpose of profiting from activities unrelated to football, and count that towards FFP because it's technically part of the club?

It's not using the profits from other businesses to provide sponsorship that is the issue, it was the amount.
City's commercial deals were vastly over inflated in relation to where they were in the footballing world at the time with naming/sponsorship deals on a par/or in excess of the biggest clubs in world football.
I believe it was around £35 million a year for 10 years, vastly more than Arsenal's £10 million a year for example.

Their argument was that it was based on the future size of the club, so that in 10 years the deals would represent market value.
But, even now, £35 million a year is still some way off market value as our own attempts to secure naming rights has shown.

 

[Johnny J]

Sadly, you're right.
City's dodgy deals have made them the highest turnover club in the world now )according to Deloitte) so its just a question of time until Newcastle join them.

View attachment 108870

This image and the graph a couple of posts above show how absurdly well Levy, for all his mistakes on the football side, has run Spurs as a business. To be the tenth highest-turnover club in the world is so impressive given we don't win anything, and haven't had a record of winning regular trophies for a long long time.

 

[Barmby Army]

It's not using the profits from other businesses to provide sponsorship that is the issue, it was the amount.
City's commercial deals were vastly over inflated in relation to where they were in the footballing world at the time with naming/sponsorship deals on a par/or in excess of the biggest clubs in world football.
I believe it was around £35 million a year for 10 years, vastly more than Arsenal's £10 million a year for example.

Their argument was that it was based on the future size of the club, so that in 10 years the deals would represent market value.
But, even now, £35 million a year is still some way off market value as our own attempts to secure naming rights has shown.

Nice one, I get what you're saying but for owners like City/Newcastle where profit is not the primary concern or even a concern at all, what is stopping them from buying an already-successful business that guarantees profits, bringing it under the club umbrella and then using those profits to offset any FFP worries?

My point, I suppose, is that what we're doing right now seems to make a mockery of the FFP rules anyway, in that an increasingly substantial amount of our income comes from revenue streams that have nothing to do with football.

If the point of these rules is to ensure that the accepted financial imbalances in the game are at least in some way related to performance (e.g. gate receipts, TV income, prize money), it doesn't seem logical that we should be able to improve our squad through money raised by renting out the stadium to Little Mix or the Indiana Slam Pigs NFL side every few months.

It seems to me - again, as someone who doesn't have any real knowledge of this stuff - that logically if you're an owner with no motivation to make a profit but huge motivation to bring attention onto your country via a successful football club (let's call it what it is, sportswashing) you could push this strategy much further and render FFP an irrelevance by investing in companies with no connection to football, tying them to the PLC and then beating financial fair play rules by pointing out the huge profits you've made via revenue streams that aren't to do with football.

No idea if I'm explaining my point properly here, sorry.

 

[DogsOfWar]

This image and the graph a couple of posts above show how absurdly well Levy, for all his mistakes on the football side, has run Spurs as a business. To be the tenth highest-turnover club in the world is so impressive given we don't win anything, and haven't had a record of winning regular trophies for a long long time.

This isn't even a fair representation as COVID has had a bigger effect on us than any other team (latest accounts are only for 20/21). We'll see a big jump (past Juventus) with the return of crowds for last years accounts, and shouldn't be far off the likes of PSG/Liverpool for next seasons with the return of CL and more events.

 

[Japhet]

This image and the graph a couple of posts above show how absurdly well Levy, for all his mistakes on the football side, has run Spurs as a business. To be the tenth highest-turnover club in the world is so impressive given we don't win anything, and haven't had a record of winning regular trophies for a long long time.

Levy's fiscal management of the club has been on another level. Whatever anybody says about him he's an absolute genius at this sort of thing and deserves massive credit for where we are now.

 

[animalmom]

Anyone that properly understands all this shite might be able to answer this question.

Where exactly is the line drawn on what constitutes income that can be counted towards FFP? Because I've seen a lot of talk recently about how we're in a better position with regard to transfers because of the stadium income through flogging slots to the NFL, various concerts etc...all stuff that has nothing to do with football.

So what exactly separates us from teams like City who are transparently using profits from other parts of the City Group empire to bump up their football-related income and give them more breathing space with FFP? Because to my idiot mind it seems like much the same thing.

I know there are questions over whether a lot of City's income even exists, which raises a different question, but in theory if that practice was stopped then would the club be entitled to invest in a property (using club funds) for the express purpose of profiting from activities unrelated to football, and count that towards FFP because it's technically part of the club?

I have wondered this myself. Expecting other clubs will argue Lady Gaga shouldn’t count

 

[Delboy75]

Even though the loan rules are being tightened up. If player sales money is going to become so significant I can see the bigger clubs snapping up loads of young lower league talent just to turn a profit on them with absolutely zero intention of the ever playing for their clubs. It’s definitely something we should be looking to exploit. Actually maybe it isn’t, I guess it’s a bit unethical. Although I suppose it doesn’t do the players much harm if they are getting decent loans.

 

[DogsOfWar]

Nice one, I get what you're saying but for owners like City/Newcastle where profit is not the primary concern or even a concern at all, what is stopping them from buying an already-successful business that guarantees profits, bringing it under the club umbrella and then using those profits to offset any FFP worries?

My point, I suppose, is that what we're doing right now seems to make a mockery of the FFP rules anyway, in that an increasingly substantial amount of our income comes from revenue streams that have nothing to do with football.

If the point of these rules is to ensure that the accepted financial imbalances in the game are at least in some way related to performance (e.g. gate receipts, TV income, prize money), it doesn't seem logical that we should be able to improve our squad through money raised by renting out the stadium to Little Mix or the Indiana Slam Pigs NFL side every few months.

It seems to me - again, as someone who doesn't have any real knowledge of this stuff - that logically if you're an owner with no motivation to make a profit but huge motivation to bring attention onto your country via a successful football club (let's call it what it is, sportswashing) you could push this strategy much further and render FFP an irrelevance by investing in companies with no connection to football, tying them to the PLC and then beating financial fair play rules by pointing out the huge profits you've made via revenue streams that aren't to do with football.

No idea if I'm explaining my point properly here, sorry.

I'm not sure what there is to stop them, my company is owned by a corporation that uses our profits to support less profitable companies in their group accounting.

So, theoretically, if a Saudi oil company bought us they could move as much of their profits as they liked into the footballing side. Indeed, I've played against teams set up by companies like Ford in the lower levels of senior football and the facilities/standard of football was always the best as they were heavily subsidised by the companies.

To be honest the amount of time and money we put into making our stadium fit for NFL made me assume that we could be bought up by a franchise to create the first European team once the finances made sense and the two reams would co-exist with profits shifting to pay for whichever team needed it most.

 

[Marty]

Not Spurs but this commercial revenue for City is so clearly absolute fucking horseshit and it seems like this non-FFP will do absolutely nothing to stop financial doping like this.