What's the fcking point?

[HughieG]

These things are not my strong side and usually fly over my head, and since I don't understand the regulations perfectly well...

Are you saying that the Premier League association / administration are favouring Chelsea (and other "cartel" clubs) by allowing them to do things that other clubs don't get to do? If so, how is this a money-grabbing scheme on their part - why don't they just allow all clubs to go nuts in terms of spending, why would they have to favour some and leave others out if the willingness to spend is there?

[ex_pat_magpie]

These things are not my strong side and usually fly over my head, and since I don't understand the regulations perfectly well...

Are you saying that the Premier League association / administration are favouring Chelsea (and other "cartel" clubs) by allowing them to do things that other clubs don't get to do? If so, how is this a money-grabbing scheme on their part - why don't they just allow all clubs to go nuts in terms of spending, why would they have to favour some and leave others out if the willingness to spend is there?

The basic idea (which has become an excuse) was to limit over spending getting out of hand by frivolous owners and thus putting clubs into the risk on insolvency, going to the wall, and out of business.

Since then it has become out dated, manipulated by the darling cartel, abused by certain clubs, while those who stuck to the rules have fallen behind the manipulators for fear of points deductions or severe financial penalties, which are never ever going to bother those six certain clubs, the very ones who wanted to jack in the Premiership and go off on their own and build on their inborn greed.

[Zippity]

Exactly, Pat. However the rules started out, they've been hijacked by the cartel and the PL to keep everyone else down so they can continue to fill their fat, fcuking faces.

[toptoon]

These things are not my strong side and usually fly over my head, and since I don't understand the regulations perfectly well...

Are you saying that the Premier League association / administration are favouring Chelsea (and other "cartel" clubs) by allowing them to do things that other clubs don't get to do? If so, how is this a money-grabbing scheme on their part - why don't they just allow all clubs to go nuts in terms of spending, why would they have to favour some and leave others out if the willingness to spend is there?

The official reason for PSR is to stop very rich owners like PIF buying a club like Newcastle, spending loads of money and then pulling out, thus leaving the club bankrupt and possibly sending it into administration.
Therefore they decided (broadly speaking) that clubs can only spend what the club itself earns.

The actual reason is that the cartel 6 have far higher revenue streams than the rest of us and, therefore, under these rules they can spend much more, buying all the best players while the rest are not allowed to compete in the transfer market with them (even though they may have access to enough money from their owners).

It would be incredibly simple to safeguard the financial security of any club by insisting that the owners register any inputted funds as belonging to the club itself.
This simple solution is ignored though. Guess why.

[Nufcian]

Gonna have to disagree with the vast majority in a way.

While it benefits certain clubs in the Prem, this wasn’t their doing.

FFP was implemented in 2009 by UEFA… and it was inevitable that it would apply to the Prem soon after (about 2 years it took)

That was 1 year after Chelsea reached a CL final while being bankrolled by abrahmovich and also a 1 year after Mansour bought City.

This wasn’t something that Prem clubs put in place, this was (in my opinion at least) something that was put in place to stop Premier league teams dominating European football.

We were already the cream of the crop on sky, with the biggest tv deals in Europe, so clubs in Europe were petrified we’d see more and more investment coming in (like Mansour) to the most entertaining league, which would put a stranglehold on Champions league football.

I look at teams like Madrid, Barca, Inter, Bayern, and the likes, lobbying UEFA for a means to restrict investment in the Prem, not domestic teams.

Just my take on it anyway.

[toptoon]

It was interesting to see the name change from FFP (financial fair play) rules to PSR (profit and sustainability rules).
I think the main reason was because having the words ‘fair play’ was almost comical.

How often we see in life these days, the rich and powerful introducing rules which benefit themselves under the pretense of helping others.

[HughieG]

It would be incredibly simple to safeguard the financial security of any club by insisting that the owners register any inputted funds as belonging to the club itself.
This simple solution is ignored though. Guess why.

Thank you for the explanation. It's actually the guess why that is still puzzling me; Newcastle as a club, in my eyes, has the potential to establish some serious revenue streams in a very short space of time. One would think this would be of interest to the Premier League in terms of income. But maybe I've overlooked something.

[Nufcian]

Just to add though, clubs themselves can only make a 5m loss per season, 15m ver 3 years… owners are allowed to give the remaining 90m of the 105m 3 year rolling permissible loss amount.

It’s an incredibly small amount for our owners, maybe not for some clubs, BUT that’s where I have issue with it… it’s anti-competitive and limits new owners… maybe if they said a maximum of 20% of owners net profit a year… though in our case that would be billions so not likely to ever happen 🤦*♂️

Again though, it’s a European giant instigated anti-competitive control, not a Prem league control… and even if the Prem were to say otherwise that would only apply to domestic competition and UEFA would bar clubs from European competition who didn’t follow their rules.

[Nufcian]

It was interesting to see the name change from FFP (financial fair play) rules to PSR (profit and sustainability rules).
I think the main reason was because having the words ‘fair play’ was almost comical.

How often we see in life these days, the rich and powerful introducing rules which benefit themselves under the pretense of helping others.

It’s f**king annoying though… they use the word sustainability and Man sure have north of 500m debt and Barca have north of 1 BILLION debt… and have sold off a large percentage of future TV rights to bail them out multiple times… how the f**k is that sustainable.

Barca are so f**ked, they even end load their players wages… so they get a small percentage at the start of contracts and by the end the players wages a month are astronomical… that’s why we always see them trying to move players on (or so I’ve been told)

[toptoon]

It’s f**king annoying though… they use the word sustainability and Man sure have north of 500m debt and Barca have north of 1 BILLION debt… and have sold off a large percentage of future TV rights to bail them out multiple times… how the f**k is that sustainable.

It is. ManU’s situation vs Newcastle can be compared to two houses. Would you rather own a house worth £50 million and have a £35 million mortgage or own a house worth £5 million but debt free.
Financially speaking it would be the former but I’ll say this, I would be hugely more concerned about running into financial difficulties (and thus putting the financial health of Man U in jeopardy) than I would with Newcastle. Isn’t that why the ManU fans hate the Glazer’s so much?