Financial Fair Play

[ajap1979]

Ascayman said:

pavarotti1980 said:

Remind me what you would have won without clubs cheating (which has been proven)

But it’s not about Tottenham it’s about ffp and the doped teams cooking the books which as much as you want to justify / deny it Newcastle are doing (while whining that they can’t).

It feels to me like you think there is more nuance to it than there really is. Companies connected to the clubs owners are allowed to sponsor. That's a fact, with the only proviso being that it is at market value. Is the valuation correct? Well they've not exactly gone mad have they? As much as you want them to be "cooking the books", can you point out exactly how you think they're doing so?

[pavarotti1980]

Ascayman said:

Well of course it’s impossible to say as it’s hypothetical now, I said may have won not would have won though but there’s no question that we’ve lost players and finished runners up in competitions to the doped clubs.

But it’s not about Tottenham it’s about ffp and the doped teams cooking the books which as much as you want to justify / deny it Newcastle are doing (while whining that they can’t).

Well it is about Spurs as you said they would have won something if it weren't for cheats. Who are the proven cheats that beat Spurs to something in recent years?

Please point to my post about me justifying and whining about Newcastle? The figure of £25m you hang to as some sort of proof is entirely subjective. AIA pay Spuds £40m a year for the same success as Newcastle have had recently. Whereabouts do you draw the line?

For comparison did you cry about Leicester having King Power as their shirt and stadium sponsors a few years ago because if that was fine then surely your whole argument is based solely on the level of finance and not actually the route it takes. For reference King Power paid Leicester £11m in 2014/15

Edited by pavarotti1980 on Wednesday 24th January 13:11

[Ascayman]

Challo said:

If newcastle where in the CL this season, also look to be potentally pushing for Europe again this year.

Had a quick look and Spurs are getting 40m a season from AIA in 2023/24, so is 25m actually seems like a bit cheap.

Tottenham are not really comparable though, they are a much bigger club and had something like 15 straight years in European competition inc a CL final.

Newcastle got taken over then a few months later signed 3 separate sponsorship deals with themselves for 5 times the value they previously got.

It’s apples and oranges.

What Newcastle are doing is exactly what City did. If you think city have been cheating (which I happen to) then by definition Newcastle are too.

[Ascayman]

pavarotti1980 said:

Ascayman said:

Well of course it’s impossible to say as it’s hypothetical now, I said may have won not would have won though but there’s no question that we’ve lost players and finished runners up in competitions to the doped clubs.

But it’s not about Tottenham it’s about ffp and the doped teams cooking the books which as much as you want to justify / deny it Newcastle are doing (while whining that they can’t).

Well it is about Spurs as you said they would have won something if it weren't for cheats. Who are the proven cheats that beat Spurs to something in recent years?

Please point to my post about me justifying and whining about Newcastle? The figure of £25m you hang to as some sort of proof is entirely subjective. AIA pay Spuds £40m a year for the same success as Newcastle have had recently. Whereabouts do you draw the line?

For comparison did you cry about Leicester having King Power as their shirt and stadium sponsors a few years ago because if that was fine then surely your whole argument is based solely on the level of finance and not actually the route it takes. For reference King Power paid Leicester £11m in 2014/15

Edited by pavarotti1980 on Wednesday 24th January 13:11

I didn’t bring spurs into this you did and you’ve deliberately misquoted me a number of times I’ve corrected you a couple of times (youve even quoted one of them) on what I actually said but still you misquote so you’ve clearly another agenda….. that we are talking at about spurs in a thread about FFP is bananas given they are one of the teams that follows the rules religiously.

And in a discussion about market value of sponsorship deals if you really can’t tell the difference between one actually obtained on the market vs one where you sponsor yourselves with a huge increase over the last open market deal you did then I really can’t help you.

Let’s also not pretend it’s one deal, it was 3 at last count.

You open this discussion by saying you don’t wear rose tinted glasses.. I think you maybe in denial old chap.

As for the look squirrel argument not sure what you want me to say there was plenty said about Leicester go look for yourself if you like.

[pavarotti1980]

Ascayman said:

I didn’t bring spurs into this you did and you’ve deliberately misquoted me a number of times I’ve corrected you a couple of times (youve even quoted one of them) on what I actually said but still you misquote so you’ve clearly another agenda….. that we are talking at about spurs in a thread about FFP is bananas given they are one of the teams that follows the rules religiously.

Never mentioned FFP. I asked if £40m AIA shirt sponsorship was fair market value given you have won as much as Newcastle recently. Your subjective opinion was you think it is. You also stated that Spurs had been cheated out of winning something. So far you have been unable to show who cheated (proven and punished) and what this mystery competition might be

Ascayman said:

And in a discussion about market value of sponsorship deals if you really can’t tell the difference between one actually obtained on the market vs one where you sponsor yourselves with a huge increase over the last open market deal you did then I really can’t help you.

Of course the levels will rise over the years. Costs rise so revenue has to keep pace

Ascayman said:

You open this discussion by saying you don’t wear rose tinted glasses.. I think you maybe in denial old chap.

I am merely using your arguments back at you. No denial at all

Ascayman said:

As for the look squirrel argument not sure what you want me to say there was plenty said about Leicester go look for yourself if you like.

No squirrel. Do you feel the same with Leicester as you do with Man City and Newcastle? Your opinion not someone else's that I have to "look for"

[48k]

pavarotti1980 said:

Never mentioned FFP. I asked if £40m AIA shirt sponsorship was fair market value given you have won as much as Newcastle recently.

Sorry to butt in but just to pick up on this point - a clubs' value to a sponsor isn't wholly defined by what a club wins - the current AIA deal was agreed the month after Tottenham reached (but lost) the Champions League final.

But also - Tottenham is a huge brand in Asia, with Son Heung-min as its captain and one of its biggest stars. Son is hero-worshiped and the face of Tottenham all across the continent.

There is a lot of prestige (and thus value) for AIA - as Asia's largest insurance group - to be associated with the club.

Champions League Finalist + Son = kerrching.

[tamore]

can't all have squeaky clean owners like Joe Lewis

[pavarotti1980]

48k said:

Sorry to butt in but just to pick up on this point - a clubs' value to a sponsor isn't wholly defined by what a club wins - the current AIA deal was agreed the month after Tottenham reached (but lost) the Champions League final.

But also - Tottenham is a huge brand in Asia, with Son Heung-min as its captain and one of its biggest stars. Son is hero-worshiped and the face of Tottenham all across the continent.

There is a lot of prestige (and thus value) for AIA - as Asia's largest insurance group - to be associated with the club.

Champions League Finalist + Son = kerrching.

Wholehearted agree. Which points back to the subjective nature as to what is regarded as fair market value

tamore said:

can't all have squeaky clean owners like Joe Lewis

Was that inside information?

[48k]

tamore said:

can't all have squeaky clean owners like Joe Lewis

Joe Lewis hasn't "owned" Spurs for years. And he was removed as a Person with Significant Control in 2022.

A cynical person would say he was getting things in order before his arrest last year, I couldn't possibly comment.

[Challo]

Ascayman said:

And in a discussion about market value of sponsorship deals if you really can’t tell the difference between one actually obtained on the market vs one where you sponsor yourselves with a huge increase over the last open market deal you did then I really can’t help you.

I agree with your point that its certainly helpful to Newcastle to have so many companies owned by the Saudi's that can sponsor them, but going by what we can see is that the value paid is market value. What we dont know is if there was other clubs also wanting to sponsor newcastle and what they would have paid.

As a United fan i am glad we got Radcliffe rather than being Qatar owned.

[MCBrowncoat]

pavarotti1980 said:

48k said:

Sorry to butt in but just to pick up on this point - a clubs' value to a sponsor isn't wholly defined by what a club wins - the current AIA deal was agreed the month after Tottenham reached (but lost) the Champions League final.

But also - Tottenham is a huge brand in Asia, with Son Heung-min as its captain and one of its biggest stars. Son is hero-worshiped and the face of Tottenham all across the continent.

There is a lot of prestige (and thus value) for AIA - as Asia's largest insurance group - to be associated with the club.

Champions League Finalist + Son = kerrching.

Wholehearted agree. Which points back to the subjective nature as to what is regarded as fair market value

tamore said:

can't all have squeaky clean owners like Joe Lewis

Was that inside information?

Piss funny

[Ascayman]

48k said:

Sorry to butt in but just to pick up on this point - a clubs' value to a sponsor isn't wholly defined by what a club wins - the current AIA deal was agreed the month after Tottenham reached (but lost) the Champions League final.

But also - Tottenham is a huge brand in Asia, with Son Heung-min as its captain and one of its biggest stars. Son is hero-worshiped and the face of Tottenham all across the continent.

There is a lot of prestige (and thus value) for AIA - as Asia's largest insurance group - to be associated with the club.

Champions League Finalist + Son = kerrching.

I wouldn’t bother it’s like trying to have a conversation with mince. He’s still misquoting me while quoting me pointing out that he’s continually misquoting me

Life is too short

[ajap1979]

Ascayman said:

48k said:

Sorry to butt in but just to pick up on this point - a clubs' value to a sponsor isn't wholly defined by what a club wins - the current AIA deal was agreed the month after Tottenham reached (but lost) the Champions League final.

But also - Tottenham is a huge brand in Asia, with Son Heung-min as its captain and one of its biggest stars. Son is hero-worshiped and the face of Tottenham all across the continent.

There is a lot of prestige (and thus value) for AIA - as Asia's largest insurance group - to be associated with the club.

Champions League Finalist + Son = kerrching.

I wouldn’t bother it’s like trying to have a conversation with mince. He’s still misquoting me while quoting me pointing out that he’s continually misquoting me

Life is too short

The point remains that you seem to have a bee in your bonnet about Newcastle breaking rules. So I'll ask again, what specifically have they done to bend the rules? You seem so sure of it, so it should be quite simple to answer...

[pavarotti1980]

Ascayman said:

I wouldn’t bother it’s like trying to have a conversation with mince. He’s still misquoting me while quoting me pointing out that he’s continually misquoting me

Life is too short

Don't be so hard on yourself. Although self awareness is an admirable quality

[johnboy1975]

Challo said:

What are the figures for the 3 years ending 21/22 which is where the issue is. Lots of spending and not much going out in sales. I think there was some issues around how Everton are funding their stadium which impacted the FFP

I'm talking about why we failed in 2024 for the 3 year reporting years. (Ending 22/23?)

I also thought hose years ending 21/22 were high spend and we've been punished for those with a 10 point deduction (appeal pending) but the net spend is good and the reality is we've been cutting for a good while now - so there's only wages to consider. Rodriguez was on 200k a week which is madness, and falls within that period I think? We sold Richarlison because the PL said we had to, and thought that took us under. But we failed by 200m / 19.5m after mitigations

But in essence the reason we are in the st is from the mega spending at the start of the Moshiri era, and the stupid wages paid in the pursuit of CL and European positions (that and the eventual 17th place finishes which meant next to no league position money). So if FFP has been going 10 years I'm really not sure how we passed. I can only think the st didn't really hit the fan until the covid years, and a lot of it was mitigated. I know our "losses" are the highest...

The stadium (spending money on infrastructure) should never have been included. I think Moshiri did it in an unorthodox way, but regardless, it was cleared as counting as allowable deductions, before the PL changed their mind halfway through.

I'd appeal on 2 grounds, spending on infrastructure should be allowed. And inflation should be taken into account. For Forest too, I think inflation is a stronger argument then deliberately selling a player outside the reporting period to get more money (and thus belatedly comply). Although it does seem rather nuts that in doing so, they improved their financial position, which you would think is what FFP is all about? But yet got punished for doing so...

[dmulally]

I see absolutely nothing wrong with Newcastle signing a shirt sponsorship deal with a Saudi business which is owned by the PIF who also owns 80% of Newcastle. A lot of other people would but I'm more sophisticated than them.

It's great for the sport.

[ajap1979]

dmulally said:

I see absolutely nothing wrong with Newcastle signing a shirt sponsorship deal with a Saudi business which is owned by the PIF who also owns 80% of Newcastle. A lot of other people would but I'm more sophisticated than them.

It's great for the sport.

With respect, Newcastle allegedly “bending the rules” is nothing to do with anyone’s personal opinion, they’re either breaking the rules, or they’re not. It’s that black and white. Disagree with the rules all you like.

[dmulally]

ajap1979 said:

dmulally said:

I see absolutely nothing wrong with Newcastle signing a shirt sponsorship deal with a Saudi business which is owned by the PIF who also owns 80% of Newcastle. A lot of other people would but I'm more sophisticated than them.

It's great for the sport.

With respect, Newcastle allegedly “bending the rules” is nothing to do with anyone’s personal opinion, they’re either breaking the rules, or they’re not. It’s that black and white. Disagree with the rules all you like.

I said it's great for the sport. Surely this is something we can all agree with regardless of which team we support.

[Challo]

johnboy1975 said:

Challo said:

What are the figures for the 3 years ending 21/22 which is where the issue is. Lots of spending and not much going out in sales. I think there was some issues around how Everton are funding their stadium which impacted the FFP

I'm talking about why we failed in 2024 for the 3 year reporting years. (Ending 22/23?)

I also thought hose years ending 21/22 were high spend and we've been punished for those with a 10 point deduction (appeal pending) but the net spend is good and the reality is we've been cutting for a good while now - so there's only wages to consider. Rodriguez was on 200k a week which is madness, and falls within that period I think? We sold Richarlison because the PL said we had to, and thought that took us under. But we failed by 200m / 19.5m after mitigations

But in essence the reason we are in the st is from the mega spending at the start of the Moshiri era, and the stupid wages paid in the pursuit of CL and European positions (that and the eventual 17th place finishes which meant next to no league position money). So if FFP has been going 10 years I'm really not sure how we passed. I can only think the st didn't really hit the fan until the covid years, and a lot of it was mitigated. I know our "losses" are the highest...

The stadium (spending money on infrastructure) should never have been included. I think Moshiri did it in an unorthodox way, but regardless, it was cleared as counting as allowable deductions, before the PL changed their mind halfway through.

I'd appeal on 2 grounds, spending on infrastructure should be allowed. And inflation should be taken into account. For Forest too, I think inflation is a stronger argument then deliberately selling a player outside the reporting period to get more money (and thus belatedly comply). Although it does seem rather nuts that in doing so, they improved their financial position, which you would think is what FFP is all about? But yet got punished for doing so...

I agree Everton potentially have some mitigating factors, and perhaps their point deduction could be reduced. On the inflation point yes it could be argued that it should be increased, but on the other side it seems bizarre that clubs can lose 105m over 3 seasons and they are arguing they want to be able to lose more.

It’s going to be fun when they change to the system to a wage vs revenue number.

[johnboy1975]

Challo said:

I agree Everton potentially have some mitigating factors, and perhaps their point deduction could be reduced. On the inflation point yes it could be argued that it should be increased, but on the other side it seems bizarre that clubs can lose 105m over 3 seasons and they are arguing they want to be able to lose more.

It’s going to be fun when they change to the system to a wage vs revenue number.

Yes I do agree on the bizarreness of arguing to lose more money please . Edit: but if you could lose 105m in 2014, the direct equivalent is now, what, 140m? 150m??

Is the wage vs revenue thing definitely coming in? That will be another case of Utd have 400m revenue so can spend 70% or £280m. Whilst Luton (eg) earn £6.50 and a mars bar, so they get to spend sod all. Effectively the current system, if you like

But as I said earlier, I'm not sure how you keep Luton (eg) solvent whilst allowing Villa and West Ham (eg) to truly compete with the big boys. Ultimately, you can't. You need slow organic growth or a crop of world class youth players or great scouting and a degree of luck.

Edited by johnboy1975 on Thursday 25th January 08:44