NFFC Financial Talk

[Sniffer Dog (Admin)]

I would be gutted if we are forced to sell Murillo to comply with these rules. It just shows what they're there for - so that clubs like us are forced sellers of our best players to the already rich clubs. It bloody stinks.

Indeed.

[Mcforest]

The thing is the rules for PSR are now expected to change in the summer, so working out if we apply with the current rules isn't going to help us. The question is what are the full new rules and do we meet them.

[DeesideRed]

Its an interesting proposition really, how to stop clubs going bust vs creating a scenario where theres an elite. The Champions League has destroyed smaller leagues, obviously on my doorstep we have the Welsh Premier League where CL money has essentially turned TNS into perennial winners (bar covid when luck, a bit of cash etc helped CQN win the title). You see it throughout europe now, certainly in the smaller nations where the same teams just smash the domestic league.

As fans we dont want that, so we dont want to prevent wealthy, ambitious individuals turning up and changing the established order (Abramovich at Chelesa an obvious example). So now, should Newcastle be allowed to go compete? as PSR says no.

The question for me has always been about debt, certainly in the lower leagues this has been the issue. PSR is not going to stop a Macc, Bury etc. Its never an issue when the wealthy individual is spending their own money and not saddling the club with their bad decisions.

[Sausage Roll]

A group of Nottingham MPs (not sure if cross-party, have only seen Labour ones) have written to the Sport and Culture Secretary asking for all punishments to be suspended until the independent football regulator has been appointed.

[Shawoddyred]

The thing is the rules for PSR are now expected to change in the summer, so working out if we apply with the current rules isn't going to help us. The question is what are the full new rules and do we meet them.

Although they may come up with the new rules this year, surely they can't actually put them in place for a few more years?? You can't just click your fingers and adhere to these kinds of new rules

[Squarered]

Another question for those more expert on these matters - why is the line in the sand for submitting accounting info where it is date wise? Surely with two defined transfer windows for football clubs the line should be drawn after one of the transfer windows closes? That way clubs can get full value for their assets in the transfer window (like Brennan) and not be forced to sell early for less than market value. Seems daft

[Salvatore Matrecano]

A group of Nottingham MPs (not sure if cross-party, have only seen Labour ones) have written to the Sport and Culture Secretary asking for all punishments to be suspended until the independent football regulator has been appointed.

Call me cynical but this smells of opportunism in an election year whatever party they represent. Reckon one or two of them won’t know the first thing about football. Its highly unlikely to make a difference anyway and the Government has no say in the decision.

[Sausage Roll]

A group of Nottingham MPs (not sure if cross-party, have only seen Labour ones) have written to the Sport and Culture Secretary asking for all punishments to be suspended until the independent football regulator has been appointed.

Call me cynical but this smells of opportunism in an election year whatever party they represent. Reckon one or two of them won’t know the first thing about football. Its highly unlikely to make a difference anyway and the Government has no say in the decision.

I agree - just like when the other MPs wrote about the City Ground lease situation.

[Shawoddyred]

Another question for those more expert on these matters - why is the line in the sand for submitting accounting info where it is date wise? Surely with two defined transfer windows for football clubs the line should be drawn after one of the transfer windows closes? That way clubs can get full value for their assets in the transfer window (like Brennan) and not be forced to sell early for less than market value. Seems daft

I am definitely no expert....but I don't think anyone has a clue. It's another nonsense decision. I'm pretty sure 30th June is simply an arbitrary date chosen by someone, somewhere, that exists between the end of one season and before the next. Think it really is as simple as that.

[Salvatore Matrecano]

Player contracts I believe have always started and finished on 30th June so it makes sense.

[stirred]

Its an interesting proposition really, how to stop clubs going bust vs creating a scenario where theres an elite. The Champions League has destroyed smaller leagues, obviously on my doorstep we have the Welsh Premier League where CL money has essentially turned TNS into perennial winners (bar covid when luck, a bit of cash etc helped CQN win the title). You see it throughout europe now, certainly in the smaller nations where the same teams just smash the domestic league.

As fans we dont want that, so we dont want to prevent wealthy, ambitious individuals turning up and changing the established order (Abramovich at Chelesa an obvious example). So now, should Newcastle be allowed to go compete? as PSR says no.

The question for me has always been about debt, certainly in the lower leagues this has been the issue. PSR is not going to stop a Macc, Bury etc. Its never an issue when the wealthy individual is spending their own money and not saddling the club with their bad decisions.

Well they could set a flat spending cap per season - same for all clubs. Other sports do that, I think Formula One racing, US sports though I'm not familiar with them.

If a club's income falls short of the cap, let the owner inject more money up to that level. They just need to not saddle the club with debt - and that principle is already there. The £35M of allowed losses is actually only £5M unless the owner injects equity of the other £30M, ie its not loading the club with debt.

The only other bit you would need is because the expenditure could be a lot larger than revenue, would be some sort of pledge on assets (effectively collateral) to guard against the case where the owner decides he has had enough and walks away leaving large spending commitments ie player contracts.

But the rich clubs wouldn't want it, as it would allow new clubs (eg Newcastle) to break into their cosy club and push them out. And I imagine many owners outside of the **** 6 would not want it as they know mega rich owners could come in with spending that they can't match, and push them even further down the pecking order. It does raise the prospect of it increasingly becoming a battleground for nation states to have a proxy war! Better than nukes I guess.

The only way to really tame this beast is reduce the inequality in income distribution. The proposed regulator would have the authority to do this to a degree (domestically), but with the european income as it is, and ever-expanding UEFA competitions and the expanded FIFA World Club competition, and with the **** 6 already having built their global brands, there is a large moat around their business model.

[wassy04]

Another question for those more expert on these matters - why is the line in the sand for submitting accounting info where it is date wise? Surely with two defined transfer windows for football clubs the line should be drawn after one of the transfer windows closes? That way clubs can get full value for their assets in the transfer window (like Brennan) and not be forced to sell early for less than market value. Seems daft

I am definitely no expert....but I don't think anyone has a clue. It's another nonsense decision. I'm pretty sure 30th June is simply an arbitrary date chosen by someone, somewhere, that exists between the end of one season and before the next. Think it really is as simple as that.

It's actually opportunistic, most clubs aligned with 30th June as SM says so to align with contracts expiring as it makes it easier to account for. The window used to open in July too but they seem to have changed it recently which has created this two week or so window to be able to essentially correct for previous mistakes. 

You are right though, it's allowed clubs to essentially use a third window. It would be much simpler if they said you had to exclude transfers received in that period yes. 

Interestingly, I read earlier that Wolves weren't happy they were name dropped in the report for selling Neves in June. Sounds like an error on our part in the submission because according to the article I read, Wolves were saying it didn't matter as they have chosen to have their accounts run until end of May rather than June. So it's not set in stone that you have to use that June date.

On the plus side, it does create this opportunity if you are financially savvy to pick up some bargains in June. Presumably it'll just be the big clubs and maybe Brighton that can take advantage.