Discussion
johnboy1975 said:
This is my bugbear. I wondered why "the 14" signed up to this. My speculation is that it comes close to making the Premiership a closed shop. Yes there's still relegation, but it's predominantly the promoted sides that go down. Normally 2 from 3, and this year likely to be all 3. (Leicester and Southampton counter this view I guess)
Still not quite sure why FFP is only exploding now after more than a decade. To answer my own question, If it was index linked to inflation I don't think anyone would be having any issues. In our (Everton) case, we were far more profligate in Moshiris early years, had Rodriguez on 200k a week, spent 100m+ in a window, had lots of players on 100k+ a week. Holgate on 70k a particularly bad offer (which we are still paying now). To counter that we finished 6/7/8 but wouldn't have thought that made that big a difference in the scheme of things, say an extra 8 or 9 places at 2m a pop
And my other bugbear is that the teams on TV most get more TV money AND More finish place money AND money from European competitions, whilst also getting more fans, more sponsorship, more merchandise sales and more match day revenue. Some if that you can't control (obviously) but doesn't seem very "fair" that there isn't more equality wrt the TV money - a straight split. Or even a reverse split of the placement money so the side finishing 20th gets the most (although this then penalises the rest of the EFL and makes the PL even more of a closed shop, possibly?)
I suppose to a point it was ever thus? You and Leeds were big in the seventies, we were big in the eighties, ditto Liverpool (and it took them 30 years to recover), Utd were big in the nineties and noughties. Hope Cities dominance comes crashing down (soon) cos it's getting a tad boring now. Hopefully Richard Masters was as good as his word when he said "soon"...
Have to wonder if teams have always been on the wrong side of FFP but had been more creative with accounting. Still not quite sure why FFP is only exploding now after more than a decade. To answer my own question, If it was index linked to inflation I don't think anyone would be having any issues. In our (Everton) case, we were far more profligate in Moshiris early years, had Rodriguez on 200k a week, spent 100m+ in a window, had lots of players on 100k+ a week. Holgate on 70k a particularly bad offer (which we are still paying now). To counter that we finished 6/7/8 but wouldn't have thought that made that big a difference in the scheme of things, say an extra 8 or 9 places at 2m a pop
And my other bugbear is that the teams on TV most get more TV money AND More finish place money AND money from European competitions, whilst also getting more fans, more sponsorship, more merchandise sales and more match day revenue. Some if that you can't control (obviously) but doesn't seem very "fair" that there isn't more equality wrt the TV money - a straight split. Or even a reverse split of the placement money so the side finishing 20th gets the most (although this then penalises the rest of the EFL and makes the PL even more of a closed shop, possibly?)
I suppose to a point it was ever thus? You and Leeds were big in the seventies, we were big in the eighties, ditto Liverpool (and it took them 30 years to recover), Utd were big in the nineties and noughties. Hope Cities dominance comes crashing down (soon) cos it's getting a tad boring now. Hopefully Richard Masters was as good as his word when he said "soon"...
The TV money split is unfair, but then again so many other things are too! Perhaps the new rules will work where spending is linked to the revenue of the smallest club, but I doubt it.
Looking at our appeal decision, it's hilarious that we were criticised for trying to maximise our profit and sustainability by holding out for more money in Bren sale to Spurs. I'm really looking forward to a break in football (which might be hard with the Euros coming up). This season has been draining both on and off the pitch, there has been little joy in the majority of our games (Newcastle away, Man U and Fulham at home excluded) and I'm starting to lose interest. If we cement staying up this Saturday I don't think I will even bother watching the final day.
Fast Bug said:
Hackney said:
Fast Bug said:
By breaking the rules for years you mean trying to build a new stadium to improve our sustainability as that's what the bulk of our charges were around.
And not being able to predict Russia invading the Ukraine meaning we'd lose a huge chunk of sponsorship/sugar daddy money. If only we had a crystal ball
Yes, everything is fine at Everton. Nothing to see here. And not being able to predict Russia invading the Ukraine meaning we'd lose a huge chunk of sponsorship/sugar daddy money. If only we had a crystal ball
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2024/apr/12/e...
t show. It's all linked to the loss of Usmanov and losing his sponsorship money. Like I say, the PL said we should've predicted Russia invading the Ukraine... The interest payments are linked to trying to build the new stadium to improve our income as Goodison is limited in terms of corporate hospitality and also non-match day income. The new stadium will enable us to bring a heck of a lot more money on to the bottom lineI thought it was covid.
The G Kid said:
.
The TV money split is unfair, but then again so many other things are too! Perhaps the new rules will work where spending is linked to the revenue of the smallest club, but I doubt it.
The new rules I heard mooted last week was 5* the smallest clubs TV money. As this starts at 100m, failing won't be an issue (Chelsea aside, possibly?) but seems a bit generous in that clubs could massively overspend and go out of business, the one thing these rules are trying to prevent. Handily, they also said PSR would run in parallel with the new rules...The TV money split is unfair, but then again so many other things are too! Perhaps the new rules will work where spending is linked to the revenue of the smallest club, but I doubt it.
Hackney said:
Fast Bug said:
Hackney said:
Fast Bug said:
By breaking the rules for years you mean trying to build a new stadium to improve our sustainability as that's what the bulk of our charges were around.
And not being able to predict Russia invading the Ukraine meaning we'd lose a huge chunk of sponsorship/sugar daddy money. If only we had a crystal ball
Yes, everything is fine at Everton. Nothing to see here. And not being able to predict Russia invading the Ukraine meaning we'd lose a huge chunk of sponsorship/sugar daddy money. If only we had a crystal ball
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2024/apr/12/e...
t show. It's all linked to the loss of Usmanov and losing his sponsorship money. Like I say, the PL said we should've predicted Russia invading the Ukraine... The interest payments are linked to trying to build the new stadium to improve our income as Goodison is limited in terms of corporate hospitality and also non-match day income. The new stadium will enable us to bring a heck of a lot more money on to the bottom lineI thought it was covid.
That left us with a massive hole to fill in income, hence the loans and interest payments to get the new stadium built and falling foul of PSR. We've actually been pretty good on the transfer front and reducing the wage bill over the past few seasons.
johnboy1975 said:
The new rules I heard mooted last week was 5* the smallest clubs TV money. As this starts at 100m, failing won't be an issue (Chelsea aside, possibly?) but seems a bit generous in that clubs could massively overspend and go out of business, the one thing these rules are trying to prevent. Handily, they also said PSR would run in parallel with the new rules...
I think I saw that only Chelsea and City would have been over on the new rules. On the face of it, it seems like this could be a good solution, although clubs in Europe would be bound by the tighter UEFA rules (again, for my perspective as Forest fan I don't have a problem with that). I have seen no mention of PSR running in parallel with this though? Surely that makes no sense!?!?
The G Kid said:
I think I saw that only Chelsea and City would have been over on the new rules. On the face of it, it seems like this could be a good solution, although clubs in Europe would be bound by the tighter UEFA rules (again, for my perspective as Forest fan I don't have a problem with that).
I have seen no mention of PSR running in parallel with this though? Surely that makes no sense!?!?
Fully agree. Sorry for late reply, it was a discussion on ToffeeTV, and I wasn't sure if it had made any wider waves. I have seen no mention of PSR running in parallel with this though? Surely that makes no sense!?!?
Found it here, being discussed on TalkSport with Kieran Maguire (financial expert). I think the example they gave was Crystal Palace, who can currently spend 170m. The new cap of a mooted 5*103m (=515m) would act in parallel with PSR, meaning their limit was still 170m.
https://youtu.be/7c2LHlhAzMo?si=S7axnNFALHR9biwn
Sport_Turismo_GTS said:
I’ve not been this relaxed watching a Forest game for a while!
Haha, I was the same. Still gutted we lost though! Not really much between the teams, and whilst Cole Palmer is clearly quality there is not a chance he was MOTM. I hate the Sky favouritism to the big 6. The G Kid said:
Sport_Turismo_GTS said:
I’ve not been this relaxed watching a Forest game for a while!
Haha, I was the same. Still gutted we lost though! Not really much between the teams, and whilst Cole Palmer is clearly quality there is not a chance he was MOTM. I hate the Sky favouritism to the big 6. Sport_Turismo_GTS said:
Another match where we deserved at least a point and possible more, but got nothing. If we start turning those results around next season, we can spend more time looking up the table and less time nervously looking down.
So many games we have lost 3-2....Brentford, Chelsea, Newcastle, Man U, West Ham off the top of my head....visitinglondon said:
A real shame, the way Forest have behaved this season, that they have stayed up.
I think calling out the ste has been good for us and the other "little" clubs (as the Prem described us). Maybe the increased spotlight on us after that infamous tweet will improve standards. johnboy1975 said:
Fully agree. Sorry for late reply, it was a discussion on ToffeeTV, and I wasn't sure if it had made any wider waves.
Found it here, being discussed on TalkSport with Kieran Maguire (financial expert). I think the example they gave was Crystal Palace, who can currently spend 170m. The new cap of a mooted 5*103m (=515m) would act in parallel with PSR, meaning their limit was still 170m.
https://youtu.be/7c2LHlhAzMo?si=S7axnNFALHR9biwn
Many thanks, and thank you for the info. Basically, the new cap is a waste of time!Found it here, being discussed on TalkSport with Kieran Maguire (financial expert). I think the example they gave was Crystal Palace, who can currently spend 170m. The new cap of a mooted 5*103m (=515m) would act in parallel with PSR, meaning their limit was still 170m.
https://youtu.be/7c2LHlhAzMo?si=S7axnNFALHR9biwn
Gassing Station | Football | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff