• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Financial Fair Play

Lilbaz said:
I heard 4x. Which would be around £400m. Which is wages, amortisation and agents fees.

It's high but if you compare it to uefas current of 70% of turnover. It is a cut for any team with a turnover of £571m or more.
Click to expand...
The lowest team in the last available figures was Leeds with £112m ..so that's up to £448m using 4X

The problem with it is, it has no sustainability side. A team can still spend up to that top amount that is way above their turnover. Using a percentage of turnover instead for individual clubs is a robust solution on keeping clubs solvent. The clubs then clearly know if they want to spend more they have to increase their turnover.

£448m is still way above what the majority of teams could and should spend. And it would be interesting to see how that figure lines up for, let's say, the last two seasons for the top 6 teams? just how restrictive is it??
 
Baleforce said:
I think caps work relatively well in some sports.

Can’t see the cheats in the PL agreeing to this without also having a plan to get around it.

Can see an increase in City players having personal sponsorships with a certain airline for example.
Click to expand...
Hidden accounts in Panama, paid for by the Sheikh himself? The cheaters will always find new ways to cheat.
 
ricky2tricky4city said:
The lowest team in the last available figures was Leeds with £112m ..so that's up to £448m using 4X

The problem with it is, it has no sustainability side. A team can still spend up to that top amount that is way above their turnover. Using a percentage of turnover instead for individual clubs is a robust solution on keeping clubs solvent. The clubs then clearly know if they want to spend more they have to increase their turnover.

£448m is still way above what the majority of teams could and should spend. And it would be interesting to see how that figure lines up for, let's say, the last two seasons for the top 6 teams? just how restrictive is it??
Click to expand...

No. They will still be limited to 85% of turnover to be spent on wages, amortisation, agents fees. But the max a team can spend (utd, city...) is 4x the lowest teams revenue (the estimated sheff utd would be about £105m this season.

Believe anything over they'd have to pay a luxury tax on (the 4x not the 85%). But if in europe will be limited to 70%.
 
I'm guessing that the luxury tax would also count towards the % of turnover allowed to be spent on players. So if you do overspend the pl spending cap. It will actually cut your spending allowed under uefa and the pl cost control rules.

Kieran mcguire is going to be busy.
 
Lilbaz said:
No. They will still be limited to 85% of turnover to be spent on wages, amortisation, agents fees. But the max a team can spend (utd, city...) is 4x the lowest teams revenue (the estimated sheff utd would be about £105m this season.

Believe anything over they'd have to pay a luxury tax on (the 4x not the 85%). But if in europe will be limited to 70%.
Click to expand...
I think your right. After listening to Jordan/Maguire.

Although it said this in the article..

The model will be presented to clubs at June's AGM and - should clubs vote in favour then - it will replace the Profit and Sustainability Rules currently in place, from the 2025-26 season onwards.

I'm assuming that means it will be part of the new rules that include the 70% and 85% allowed levels that are also not in place yet. (ie we are still currently on the old rules..total losses etc)? I think was was getting ahead of myself
 
ricky2tricky4city said:
I think your right. After listening to Jordan/Maguire.

Although it said this in the article..

The model will be presented to clubs at June's AGM and - should clubs vote in favour then - it will replace the Profit and Sustainability Rules currently in place, from the 2025-26 season onwards.

I'm assuming that means it will be part of the new rules that include the 70% and 85% allowed levels that are also not in place yet. (ie we are still currently on the old rules..total losses etc)? I think was was getting ahead of myself
Click to expand...

The current rules for the prem will be replaced. You will then have the 3 rules that you will have to abide by.

1/ squad cost control. Every team in the prem can only spend 85% of turnover on wages, amortisation and agents fees.
2/ uefas psr. Teams in europe can only spend 70%.
3/ spending cap. 4x the turnover of the lowest prem team.

1 and 3 still have to be voted in. But it looks likely. 1 has been voted in principle. 3 is further investigation.
 
Last edited:
Can anyone explain why Arsenal aren’t at risk with FFP? I know there were exceptions made for Covid, but it still looks like Arsenal are averaging more than £35m per year in losses over 4-5 years.

1714987078825.png
 
elltrev said:
Can anyone explain why Arsenal aren’t at risk with FFP? I know there were exceptions made for Covid, but it still looks like Arsenal are averaging more than £35m per year in losses over 4-5 years.

View attachment 17126
Click to expand...

You have allowable losses such as stadium (they're still paying for theirs), womens team, academy etc...

Some of their loss will be depreciation of assets aswell. Think ours was about £70m a year.
 
I'm not sure they'll be able to throw another 200 odd million around this summer. They have to pay around 27m or something to make Raya permanent and they don't really have many solid players left to sell. Maybe Smith-Rowe, Partey, Nketiah or even Jesus, Hmm I suppose they could raise a decent amount. Guess we will have to wait and see.
 
dingdongo said:
I'm not sure they'll be able to throw another 200 odd million around this summer. They have to pay around 27m or something to make Raya permanent and they don't really have many solid players left to sell. Maybe Smith-Rowe, Partey, Nketiah or even Jesus, Hmm I suppose they could raise a decent amount. Guess we will have to wait and see.
Click to expand...

They got cl money aswell.
 
elltrev said:
Can anyone explain why Arsenal aren’t at risk with FFP? I know there were exceptions made for Covid, but it still looks like Arsenal are averaging more than £35m per year in losses over 4-5 years.
Click to expand...
They were right at the limit, hence they had to loan Raya and promise to pay Brentford for him later.
(As others have said, stadium costs etc are not factored into the £35m)
 
Bullet said:
They were right at the limit, hence they had to loan Raya and promise to pay Brentford for him later.
(As others have said, stadium costs etc are not factored into the £35m)
Click to expand...

We did the same with kulu, romero and porro. So not sure how close to the limit they were or if it's just some funky way clubs do business now.

Honestly i have no idea.
 
Lilbaz said:
We did the same with kulu, romero and porro. So not sure how close to the limit they were or if it's just some funky way clubs do business now.

Honestly i have no idea.
Click to expand...

I don't know about Kulusevski, Bentancur or Romero, but I'm sure Porro was to help sporting.

Others would be Paratici deals
 
Chrissivad said:
I don't know about Kulusevski, Bentancur or Romero, but I'm sure Porro was to help sporting.

Others would be Paratici deals
Click to expand...

Just saying loan to buy seems fairly common now. Might not be an inclination of a club close to psr. Might just help with cash flow.

As i said i don't know. So we can move on.
 
Lilbaz said:
We did the same with kulu, romero and porro. So not sure how close to the limit they were or if it's just some funky way clubs do business now.

Honestly i have no idea.
Click to expand...
The financial experts on a podcast said this, they know what they are on about
 
Bullet said:
The financial experts on a podcast said this, they know what they are on about
Click to expand...

Fair enough. But they've had a season of cl football with all the financial benefits that go with it. I doubt they are in any fincial difficulties now.
 
Bedfordspurs said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1792345766691844560

A worthy read if you have time
Click to expand...

One thing it mentions.

"Emirates Marketing Project sought to challenge the investigation over many years in the UK Courts of Law, thereby delaying the investigation and subsequent prosecution."

City lost those cases. Hence why the charges were made. I know you are a cynic but there is a reason why the world uses british courts and legal representation. Because they are regarded as the best and least corrupt in the world. Our own government lose in the courts often. The lastest regarding their plans to tackle climate change which the court ruled as inadequate.

Both sides will be represented by kc's. And it will be judged by kc's.

The problem is it's a case of fraud. Proving not just city, but their accountants, sponsors, and the uae itself provided false documentation. Which itself may be a criminal offence.

As the article says "The nature of the accusation is complex and the Premier League lacks broad powers of investigation because it is not a Government body".

Emirates Marketing Project are not just going to buy their way out of it. But it's going to be hard to prove.



Chelsea on the other hand have admitted to it. Their charges should be brought soon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back