The Footie Thread

[nickjdavis]

So for UEFA and FFP it would be zero but as you say for Prem PSR it would need to be adjusted for market value

Henry winter has dismissed any talks with Al Hilal and player not interested in going there

I’m not a fan of the whole saga tbh we have been on the receiving end with the same situation and it’s not fair on the fans

No it wouldnt be adjusted. The PL would refuse to actually sanction the transfer, unless it was made at a value they deem to be fair.

From the PL website...

If the Premier League Board determines that an APT is not at FMV it has the power to require the club to "restate" or vary the terms of the APT to reflect FMV. In that case, the Clubs is prohibited from concluding the deal above the "restated" value.

 

[Don Barzini]

I like Nunez but reality is he’s a poor finisher, can’t have that in the PL

https://twitter.com/x/status/1949023910394986528

 

[Arthur Wedge]

Well, as you want to carry on…



I’ve addressed these points before Art. Obviously I need to do it again.

Hands up, full disclosure - I don’t have a suggested set of alternative rules because I am no expert in football finance. But I am of the belief the current rules don’t achieve what they set out to do and that all they achieve is keeping a few clubs ahead of the rest. I believe they are anti-competitive and I believe that if the powers that be wanted to, they could easily come up with a fairer system that at least makes it more competitive. But therein lies the issue - the powers that be have no desire to allow any shift of power. “We don’t want too many Leicester City’s” after all.

As for multiple clubs challenging. Yes, maybe you’ll get the odd freak season here or there, such as Forest last season exceeding all expectations or Leicester of a few years ago. Or the odd Villa or Newcastle grabbing a CL spot. But a true, sustained challenge for silverware against the usual suspects?! No chance. All that happens when the likes of Forest/Villa/Newcastle have the odd season upsetting the applecart is the vultures circle and damage their ability to do it again.



Again I feel I have been very clear on this. I am not blaming Liverpool or anyone else, or trying to suggest that the rules were brought in specifically to help them. What I am saying is that the rules as they are inherently protect those few clubs.

The Protected Six, for their own reasons, were in the right place at the right time when the rules were brought in. They built their empires with unchecked spending. (Some more than others) And they’ve never looked back, nor had any reason to. Not their fault. Not their design. But the fact remains the rules as they exist keep them at Mr Tickle-sized arms length from everyone else. PSR entrenches the elite’s advantages and simply dismissing this is ignoring the manner in which the rules protect “legacy wealth” over fair competition.

When you keep going on about the “protected 6 or 4 or 8” it just smacks as having a massive chip

There is no such thing , there is no “anti competitive” rules

The last couple of seasons have proven that and even Leicester winning proved it

Do you expect a situation where all 18 clubs can win the title ?

When Forest are vultures below them is it ok ? There is always a team bigger - there is prob only one club immune from vultures

The clubs created this rich cherry pie and they all want a bigger slice

 

[Arthur Wedge]

No it wouldnt be adjusted. The PL would refuse to actually sanction the transfer, unless it was made at a value they deem to be fair.

From the PL website...

If the Premier League Board determines that an APT is not at FMV it has the power to require the club to "restate" or vary the terms of the APT to reflect FMV. In that case, the Clubs is prohibited from concluding the deal above the "restated" value.

It’s good that the Prem rules and UEFA rules are so aligned

 

[clubchamp98]

I agree totally...the last thing I want to see is Isak going to a direct rival.

However...if Isak went to a PIF owned team, then you would have to seriously question the motives of PIF and their true commitment to Newcastle. Once it has happened for the first time, there is nothing to stop PIF doing the same thing and asset stripping the club....Livramento, Joelinton, Tonali, Guimares, Hall....you would d take £100m instantly for any of them. Now obviously not all of them would want to go...but it only takes a couple and you are on the way to suddenly being a very cash rich club, but "player poor".

Dosnt have to be a star player though!
You could sell a academy player it’s between the clubs how much he’s worth.

Excellent way to get your bank balance up.
Just shows how poor the rules are.

 

[clubchamp98]

You know exactly where they've earned the money, and I do mean exactly? No, you can't. Not just their direct business but the full chain of where they put their money, what happens to it. I'm not suggesting anything illegal but no money in that volume stands up to full scrutiny.

'Clean as you can get', isn't clean

Yes but it’s not fronted by a Russian gangster or murderous state !

Most pensions wouldn’t stand up to that sort of scrutiny but you would have to look for it at least.

 

[clubchamp98]

The transfer would certainly be subject to a fair market value assessment as it would be classed as an "Associated Party Transaction", which is what happened when Newcastle sold Allain St. Maximin to PIF owned Al Hilal a couple of years ago to ease PSR issues. APT's count towards PSR, they are just managed a little more tightly scrutinised.

I cannot find any reference as to whether this changed significantly with the tightening of PSR regulations in 2024, to the extent that such transfer fees were "zero rated".

Who makes that assessment?
Genuinely like to know.

 

[Fade and Die]

The FA are pretty useless at everything they try to do

West Ham’s Lucas Paquetá expected to be cleared of spot-fixing over bookings

The Brazilian player was accused of picking up yellow cards deliberately but is expected to be found not guilty

www.theguardian.com

I expect the lawyers to have a field day, and the hard up FA ending up being 100Mil out of pocket!

 

[clubchamp98]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1949023910394986528

Funny Evertonian based humour

 

[Arthur Wedge]

The FA are pretty useless at everything they try to do

West Ham’s Lucas Paquetá expected to be cleared of spot-fixing over bookings

The Brazilian player was accused of picking up yellow cards deliberately but is expected to be found not guilty

www.theguardian.com

I expect the lawyers to have a field day, and the hard up FA ending up being 100Mil out of pocket!

Didn’t realise that was still on going

 

[clubchamp98]

I think we need to get the season started asap.

 

[Don Barzini]

When you keep going on about the “protected 6 or 4 or 8” it just smacks as having a massive chip

There is no such thing , there is no “anti competitive” rules

The last couple of seasons have proven that and even Leicester winning proved it

Do you expect a situation where all 18 clubs can win the title ?

When Forest are vultures below them is it ok ? There is always a team bigger - there is prob only one club immune from vultures

The clubs created this rich cherry pie and they all want a bigger slice

You have obviously ignored the part where I spoke about the concept of making a sustained challenge. I’m not going to go over it again.

I’ve set out what I expect and you are Straw Man-ing my argument by asking me if I expect a situation where all clubs can win the title.

It suits fans of Sky Six to believe they’ve got there by being “better” than everyone else and that everyone could do the same if they were as clever and well run as they were. I get it Art.

But as said - this view ignores the legacy wealth those clubs enjoy and the fact that some clubs were in a good position at the time of when the rules came in because they got where they are by the days of unchecked spending.

You and I will never agree so this time I really am happy to leave it there. Please be my guest and have the last word though.

 

[Tashyboy]

Tash ,do you belive what footy managers say including Klopp.?
Or do you take it with a pinch of salt.?

It’s a buisness and we will do whatever the buisness needs no matter what previous managers have said!

I deffo take things with a massive pinch of salt. As fans we probably know exactly what is going off 0.1% of the time re our clubs.
It’s like James Trafford. I was singing his praises the other week re going to Newcastle.
Lo and behold the following week. He is back at City.
It makes me chuckle when fans go into meltdown when listening to rumours.

 

[Pin-seeker]

I deffo take things with a massive pinch of salt. As fans we probably know exactly what is going off 0.1% of the time re our clubs.
It’s like James Trafford. I was singing his praises the other week re going to Newcastle.
Lo and behold the following week. He is back at City.
It makes me chuckle when fans go into meltdown when listening to rumours.

Makes me laugh when fans talk as if they know exactly what’s going on at their club,only to end up with egg on their face

 

[Hobbit]

The accounts are public on companies house and which shows if there is any owner investment

It shows the loan for the two stands

And it shows the investment from selling a stake in the club

You and I have already gone through where your owners/sponsors money comes from. Whilst the owners/sponsors are not owned by a dodgy regime, some of the money earned by those companies does come from ‘questionable sources.’ To suggest any global company is squeaky clean is very naive in the extreme.

Liverpool’s sponsors, pretty much like every high flying club in the land, earn a portion of their money from what even you yourself deem as ‘questionable sources,’ i.e. from the Saudi’s of this world.

To be fair, there’s a conflation of issues at play when we all argue about what is fair use of clean/unclean money at play in football. Without wishing to sound harsh, the picture you paint of a squeaky clean Liverpool doesn’t look great. By all means crack on with your narrative but it’s almost laughable really.

 

[Arthur Wedge]

You and I have already gone through where your owners/sponsors money comes from. Whilst the owners/sponsors are not owned by a dodgy regime, some of the money earned by those companies does come from ‘questionable sources.’ To suggest any global company is squeaky clean is very naive in the extreme.

Liverpool’s sponsors, pretty much like every high flying club in the land, earn a portion of their money from what even you yourself deem as ‘questionable sources,’ i.e. from the Saudi’s of this world.

To be fair, there’s a conflation of issues at play when we all argue about what is fair use of clean/unclean money at play in football. Without wishing to sound harsh, the picture you paint of a squeaky clean Liverpool doesn’t look great. By all means crack on with your narrative but it’s almost laughable really.

It wasn’t me that was talking about clean etc etc

I just highlighted that the investment into the club is within the club accounts and we are a club that doesn’t rely on owners spending their own money

When it comes to “clean etc etc” - guess there isn’t a single company that’s clean

But we aren’t state owned or held up by someone’s personal fortune - that’s good for me

 

[Hobbit]

It wasn’t me that was talking about clean etc etc

I just highlighted that the investment into the club is within the club accounts and we are a club that doesn’t rely on owners spending their own money

When it comes to “clean etc etc” - guess there isn’t a single company that’s clean

But we aren’t state owned or held up by someone’s personal fortune - that’s good for me

Don’t you think your last sentence is splitting hairs? It reads we’re not getting state owned money but we’re getting it from a company who’s majority Saudi owned…

What the vast, vast majority of people don’t realise is that to trade in Saudi you have to set up a subsidiary that is majority Saudi owned. It might only be a ‘shop front’ arrangement, e.g. Honeywell-Turki…. Anyway, we’re going way off track here. For clubs to say they have nothing to do with x, y, z in the modern era of globalisation is laughable.

 

[Arthur Wedge]

Don’t you think your last sentence is splitting hairs? It reads we’re not getting state owned money but we’re getting it from a company who’s majority Saudi owned…

What the vast, vast majority of people don’t realise is that to trade in Saudi you have to set up a subsidiary that is majority Saudi owned. It might only be a ‘shop front’ arrangement, e.g. Honeywell-Turki…. Anyway, we’re going way off track here. For clubs to say they have nothing to do with x, y, z in the modern era of globalisation is laughable.

It reads how it’s says - we are not a state owned club and not held up by someone’s personal money

Most of the clubs Income is the same as all the other clubs - prem money and CL telly money , the club sponser standard charted and now adidas

 

[Pin-seeker]

It reads how it’s says - we are not a state owned club and not held up by someone’s personal money

Most of the clubs Income is the same as all the other clubs - prem money and CL telly money , the club sponser standard charted and now adidas

The club is also happy to take Saudi money

 

[Don Barzini]

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Pep-ball in action!

https://twitter.com/x/status/1949145317846175868