Profit & Sustainability Rules Change/'Luxury Tax'

[Dave]

2 hours ago, OrangeKhrush said:

There is no limit on what players can earn,  there is a limit on what clubs can pay for wages,  thus if they want a player that wants 400K a week, 

Which is putting a limit on a player can earn, hence the new changes were a non-starter.

[LFCMike]

Manchester United insist they haven't broken FFP or PSR rules after posting £113m loss

Man Utd have released their financial results for the year ending June 30, 2024 and the club have made a substantial loss despite posting record revenues.

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/sport/football/manchester-united-insist-havent-broken-29911913

[6666]

23/24: £113.2m loss

22/23: £28.7m loss

21/22: £115.5m loss

Not all their spending goes into PSR calculations though so they're not expected to breach PSR rules.

[OrangeKhrush]

PSR is bent, it also doesnt encourage takeovers by willing investors as;

A) nobody can afford to buy a legacy club.

B) Next teir clubs like Villa, Newcastle, West Ham, Everton are finite and anything below that is in the realms of low turn over small town clubs.

Without PSR or less handcuffing may result in a slew of clubs being bought out by eager to invest owners

If you want to regulate spending then make a 100m hard limit, any penny over results in expulsion from the caraboa and FA Cup,  repeat offenders can get financial revenue share cuts and/or any other fair penalty following an outcome of adjudication.

[RandoEFC+]

They could fix it by putting a cap on how much profit from non-footballing sources (merchandise, advertising, selling hotels, etc.) any club can count in their PSR calculations. It means that clubs are still incentivised to run a sustainable operation, still rewards clubs for making a lot of money from those sources to a reasonable extent, but stops certain clubs from being able to overspend in the transfer and wage market by hundreds of millions while competing in the same league as clubs who have to sell to buy just to avoid a points deduction.

[OrangeKhrush]

There should never be handcuffing of investment,  but to ensure there is no "buying titles" you impose salary caps of relative to market size which will stop hoarding of stars as one cant afford it.   This model has worked well in MLB as neither the Dodgers or Yankees are automatics and even they have payroll flexibility issues.  There is nothing stopping MLB players getting big paydays, the reality is that it is the clubs that are not willing to pay or cant afford to pay which is how it should be.  The "restrict player earning arguement is stupid.   If clubs cant pay they walk away and the player needs to find a club or drop demands that is equal bargaining power.

It will encourage the growing of the brand but also allow prospective owners the chance to build their club

[RandoEFC+]

20 minutes ago, OrangeKhrush said:

There should never be handcuffing of investment,  but to ensure there is no "buying titles" you impose salary caps of relative to market size which will stop hoarding of stars as one cant afford it.   This model has worked well in MLB as neither the Dodgers or Yankees are automatics and even they have payroll flexibility issues.  There is nothing stopping MLB players getting big paydays, the reality is that it is the clubs that are not willing to pay or cant afford to pay which is how it should be.  The "restrict player earning arguement is stupid.   If clubs cant pay they walk away and the player needs to find a club or drop demands that is equal bargaining power.

It will encourage the growing of the brand but also allow prospective owners the chance to build their club

MLB is different though because it's the only league of its type in the world. If salary caps were introduced in the Premier League then players have the option of going to France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Saudi who could afford to pay them more.

[OrangeKhrush]

2 hours ago, RandoEFC said:

MLB is different though because it's the only league of its type in the world. If salary caps were introduced in the Premier League then players have the option of going to France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Saudi who could afford to pay them more.

It is not a limitation on earning of a player,  it is whether clubs can afford to oversaturate their teams with high earners,  if you limit what a club can spend it will mean players will go to more clubs where they can get paid more or less what they want be it by dropping demands or another club having payroll flexibility to take that player on. 

[Happy Blue]

Man City win APT legal case against the Premier League, most the 115 charges are now nil and void  the Premier League will now be sued

[Gunnersaurus]

What a terrible day for football 

[Happy Blue]

Man City appears to have scored a win in legal battle over Premier League sponsorship rules.

https://x.com/martynziegler/status/1839295282481188940?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^tweet

Edited September 26 by Happy Blue

[Dave]

1 hour ago, Happy Blue said:

Man City win APT legal case against the Premier League, most the 115 charges are now nil and void  the Premier League will now be sued

This case is separate from the 115 charges. 

This is in relation to a hearing over the summer in regards to the regulations that were established in 2021 when Newcastle were taken over. Which most of us said at the time was because the greedy six didn't want a disruptor.

But hey, however you're trying to justify Man City's achievements counting for anything to yourself when nobody else cares because we know what you are. You do you in the corner.

[Happy Blue]

9 minutes ago, Dave said:

This case is separate from the 115 charges. 

This is in relation to a hearing over the summer in regards to the regulations that were established in 2021 when Newcastle were taken over. Which most of us said at the time was because the greedy six didn't want a disruptor.

But hey, however you're trying to justify Man City's achievements counting for anything to yourself when nobody else cares because we know what you are. You do you in the corner.

They are separate well done for working that out but it destroys the 115 case  what corner?? we do what we want lol

[LFCMike]

 

[Happy Blue]

4 minutes ago, LFCMike said:

 

Stefan is just being cautious, guess we will know for sure when the rules are changed. Tariq Panja is a troll and hates Newcastle

[Dr. Gonzo]

2 hours ago, Happy Blue said:

Man City win APT legal case against the Premier League, most the 115 charges are now nil and void  the Premier League will now be sued

This case concerns stuff that happens after the period the 115 charges covers.

Legal fees should count towards PSR 

[Happy Blue]

2 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

This case concerns stuff that happens after the period the 115 charges covers.

Legal fees should count towards PSR 

They are not connected but they are 

[Stan]

2 hours ago, Happy Blue said:

but it destroys the 115 case

How? 

[Happy Blue]

4 minutes ago, Stan said:

How? 

The Premier League didn't legally have the right to limit our sponsorship deals, they are about to get sued for hundreds of millions of loss earnings unless they want to come to us and make a deal  ..it means the charges around sponsorship in the 115 case are no longer valid, the rules was unlawful to start with. this APT case was the start of our 115 defence

[6666]

All I'm seeing is the vote to amend APT rules was pulled. Not that APT rules have been deemed unlawful.

"The Times understands the 20 Premier League clubs were due to vote on an amendment to rules specific to the database at the shareholders’ meeting in central London on Thursday. The clubs were to be asked to vote on restricting access to the databank. The vote would have meant regulatory commissions and arbitration panels could not have given access to individual clubs to use the databank to acquire commercial information about rival clubs."

"However, the planned vote on the amendment was removed from the agenda late last night, even though more specific details of what the amendment regarded were not included."

"According to sources, the last minute withdrawal is being interpreted as an indication that a City legal team, led by Lord Pannick KC, have certainly enjoyed some success in convincing an independent panel that the rules on sponsorship deals need to be changed."

"Further to that, it may also suggest that it was deemed pointless making one amendment if an issue with the databank actually has wider implications for all the rules regarding APTs."

Translation: Vote on whatever the fuck the "databank" is didn't happen and it might mean something or it might mean nothing.

Edited September 27 by 6666

[OrangeKhrush]

The way I understand it  is that nothing changes.

[RandoEFC+]

It's hard to believe that this episode could become any more tedious but it has. I don't trust the Premier League at all to do what needs to be done when it comes to Manchester City. If they couldn't get Leicester because of a literally ridiculous technicality, then I fully expect Man City, who have more expensive lawyers and have been allowed years to prepare for this case, to find a way out of serious punishment. And even if the Premier League could get them bang to rights, I fully expect them to bottle the punishment based on how the Super League fiasco was (not) handled.

On a more general level, I'm absolutely fed up now of needing to self-study a law degree and an accounting degree in order to keep track of and discuss the main stories surrounding English football. I know I probably feel that more than most after the exhausting process of Everton's PSR process last season but it really isn't what football should be.

I'm sure there's a way to run PSR or something similar in English football without it descending into the farce of Everton's multiple charges in one season for different time periods, the appeals panel slashing the first punishment almost in half, Man City's 115 charges taking this long to deal with, Leicester getting off on a stupid loophole and Chelsea getting around PSR by selling hotels to their own owner's companies. The people in charge of the Premier League are over-promoted clowns. The sooner there's an independent regulator the better.

[Happy Blue]

Premier League hit with '£50m bill' amid Man City, Chelsea and Everton investigations

The latest news as the bill is reportedly six-times bigger than the league budgeted for with questions asked during Thursday's shareholders' meeting.

Well they know how to waste money that's for sure

[Gunnersaurus]

Man city are the kind of team that if they took performance enhancing drugs on tv they would get away with it. They're the most easy team to hate in the league. At least with man utd it was done fairly. A state taking over a moderately sized club that hadn't won anything for years and turning them into a powerhouse that the rules don't apply to is terrible for football. 

[OrangeKhrush]

The way people went on about it, I was under the impression that the premier league draconian anti competitive practices were under threat.   The premier league still has a sui juris right to say what is to much, based on no method or quantum it is a massive overreach of power.