Generic clubs in financial crisis Thread

[Franchise FC]

Prob not the right thread but can't be bothered to start a new one:

Man City start legal action against PL spending rules in particular the rules around sponsorship money. Clearly a tactic to try and discredit charges and take PL legal team focus away from the case against them.

Lovely club.

This has been said many times, but who decides how much sponsorship is worth ?
If the rules say it’s the PL, then it’s a really, really stupid rule because only the sponsor can truly decide whether £10 or £10m is the right answer.
Whilst it’s a different sport, who in their right mind thought throwing $40m dollars at a 19 year old Tiger Woods was good business ? However, the proof was in the results and they made an absolute killing (not least with the chip in at the 16th at Augusta)
On that basis, what price the worldwide exposure gained from Man City in the last decade.

A company called Nielsen Sports.

I’d be a having a real good think about things if I were them.
If City manage to demonstrate that the data they provide is unreliable they may have a lucrative contract on the line.

[Sutekh]

Believe the issue is that the PL want to outlaw clubs being sponsored by companies owned by the same people who own the club. Not quite sure .why Citeh are kicking off as presumably the alteration would only apply when renewing/negotiating new deals.

[Clyde1998]

Believe the issue is that the PL want to outlaw clubs being sponsored by companies owned by the same people who own the club. Not quite sure .why Citeh are kicking off as presumably the alteration would only apply when renewing/negotiating new deals.

I'm guessing it's to do with people connected to the club sponsoring a club. The sponsorship deal could easily be inflated to get around FFP rules - effectively injecting cash into the club via a sponsor. That'll be where the fair market value comes in.

[Sutekh]

Believe the issue is that the PL want to outlaw clubs being sponsored by companies owned by the same people who own the club. Not quite sure .why Citeh are kicking off as presumably the alteration would only apply when renewing/negotiating new deals.

I'm guessing it's to do with people connected to the club sponsoring a club. The sponsorship deal could easily be inflated to get around FFP rules - effectively injecting cash into the club via a sponsor. That'll be where the fair market value comes in.

Seems to me a completely justified move by the PL and something that should be a standard rule in all sporting competitions across the world.

[Franchise FC]

Believe the issue is that the PL want to outlaw clubs being sponsored by companies owned by the same people who own the club. Not quite sure .why Citeh are kicking off as presumably the alteration would only apply when renewing/negotiating new deals.

I'm guessing it's to do with people connected to the club sponsoring a club. The sponsorship deal could easily be inflated to get around FFP rules - effectively injecting cash into the club via a sponsor. That'll be where the fair market value comes in.

Seems to me a completely justified move by the PL and something that should be a standard rule in all sporting competitions across the world.

Why ?

[Dirk Gently]

I'm guessing it's to do with people connected to the club sponsoring a club. The sponsorship deal could easily be inflated to get around FFP rules - effectively injecting cash into the club via a sponsor. That'll be where the fair market value comes in.

Seems to me a completely justified move by the PL and something that should be a standard rule in all sporting competitions across the world.

Why ?

Because it's so easy for clubs and owners to abuse if they can set their own sponsorship values without any outside scrutiny on these.

[Franchise FC]

Seems to me a completely justified move by the PL and something that should be a standard rule in all sporting competitions across the world.

Why ?

Because it's so easy for clubs and owners to abuse if they can set their own sponsorship values without any outside scrutiny on these.

Given that sponsorship is non-refundable it’s one of the safest methods of funding a club without saddling it with debt. I can’t see why that’s bad.

Piling debt into a club just to fund a takeover is a much more dangerous tactic

And that’s a completely different argument to allowing owners to sponsor the club

[Dirk Gently]

Why ?

Because it's so easy for clubs and owners to abuse if they can set their own sponsorship values without any outside scrutiny on these.

Given that sponsorship is non-refundable it’s one of the safest methods of funding a club without saddling it with debt. I can’t see why that’s bad.

Piling debt into a club just to fund a takeover is a much more dangerous tactic

That's one of the problems inherent in FFP and all its over invocations. It's trying to do two different things at the same time - the first is ensuring clubs live within their means and are sustainable, and the second is ensuring that leagues are competitive without certain clubs having too much of a financial advantage.

Your argument is completely correct in terms of the first objective, but drives a coach and horses through the second objective.

[Franchise FC]

Because it's so easy for clubs and owners to abuse if they can set their own sponsorship values without any outside scrutiny on these.

Given that sponsorship is non-refundable it’s one of the safest methods of funding a club without saddling it with debt. I can’t see why that’s bad.

Piling debt into a club just to fund a takeover is a much more dangerous tactic

That's one of the problems inherent in FFP and all its over invocations. It's trying to do two different things at the same time - the first is ensuring clubs live within their means and are sustainable, and the second is ensuring that leagues are competitive without certain clubs having too much of a financial advantage.

Your argument is completely correct in terms of the first objective, but drives a coach and horses through the second objective.

Do we know for certain what the purpose of FFP is stated to be ?
As far as I can see it’s “level playing field” is solely defined as clubs living within their means.
If that’s the case then an influx of non-refundable money seems to satisfy that requirement
I can’t find anything in the original UEFA or PL (I accept I’ve only spent a few minutes looking) that ties anything into preventing clubs having too much of a financial advantage.
Indeed, the way it’s drafted is specifically driving that advantage to those who already have, compared to those that would like to have

[Sutekh]

At the end of the day if an owner wants to spend x funds on their club then they should be totally able to do so cleanly up front without any "shenanigans" or the hiding behind other methods of payment. But in doing it, it should be quite clear to all that the funds provided are not provided as a loan or in any way that saddles that club with debt. Then any financial come back should be against the individual(s) concerned and not the club.

Seems ffp, and the like, is primarily just there to keep the big clubs able to hoover all the big prizes up every season and **** off to anyone wanting to try and break in on that gravy train.

[6ft Kerplunk]

At the end of the day if an owner wants to spend x funds on their club then they should be totally able to do so cleanly up front without any "shenanigans" or the hiding behind other methods of payment. But in doing it, it should be quite clear to all that the funds provided are not provided as a loan or in any way that saddles that club with debt. Then any financial come back should be against the individual(s) concerned and not the club.

Yeah, this is kind of how I feel about it too. But I guess that opens up the discussion again about who exactly should be able to but a football club.

[Stranded]

At the end of the day if an owner wants to spend x funds on their club then they should be totally able to do so cleanly up front without any "shenanigans" or the hiding behind other methods of payment. But in doing it, it should be quite clear to all that the funds provided are not provided as a loan or in any way that saddles that club with debt. Then any financial come back should be against the individual(s) concerned and not the club.

Seems ffp, and the like, is primarily just there to keep the big clubs able to hoover all the big prizes up every season and **** off to anyone wanting to try and break in on that gravy train.

Always agreed on this - if some multi-billionaire wants to buy Slough Town and spend their own money to turn them into the biggest club in Europe, then they should be allowed to do so. The only caveat is only a certain amount can be loaned to the club and this must be at 0% interest - anything above this limit has to be treated as a gift and the owner has no recourse to recover those funds.

When sold, the new owner can chose to pay off the loans or the old owner receives the amount back over the course of an agreed period - somewhere between 10-20 years.

[Franchise FC]

At the end of the day if an owner wants to spend x funds on their club then they should be totally able to do so cleanly up front without any "shenanigans" or the hiding behind other methods of payment. But in doing it, it should be quite clear to all that the funds provided are not provided as a loan or in any way that saddles that club with debt. Then any financial come back should be against the individual(s) concerned and not the club.

Seems ffp, and the like, is primarily just there to keep the big clubs able to hoover all the big prizes up every season and **** off to anyone wanting to try and break in on that gravy train.

Always agreed on this - if some multi-billionaire wants to buy Slough Town and spend their own money to turn them into the biggest club in Europe, then they should be allowed to do so. The only caveat is only a certain amount can be loaned to the club and this must be at 0% interest - anything above this limit has to be treated as a gift and the owner has no recourse to recover those funds.

When sold, the new owner can chose to pay off the loans or the old owner receives the amount back over the course of an agreed period - somewhere between 10-20 years.

How is that any different to what Man City have already been doing ?
Sponsorship is non-refundable and doesn’t result in debt held in the club

I may have misinterpreted but I thought you were one of the extremely anti City club
My apologies if I’ve got that wrong

[Stranded]

I'm not anti them spending a rich blokes money but I don't like them deciding the rules that have been agreed don't apply to them.

[Dirk Gently]

At the end of the day if an owner wants to spend x funds on their club then they should be totally able to do so cleanly up front without any "shenanigans" or the hiding behind other methods of payment. But in doing it, it should be quite clear to all that the funds provided are not provided as a loan or in any way that saddles that club with debt. Then any financial come back should be against the individual(s) concerned and not the club.

Seems ffp, and the like, is primarily just there to keep the big clubs able to hoover all the big prizes up every season and **** off to anyone wanting to try and break in on that gravy train.

Always agreed on this - if some multi-billionaire wants to buy Slough Town and spend their own money to turn them into the biggest club in Europe, then they should be allowed to do so. The only caveat is only a certain amount can be loaned to the club and this must be at 0% interest - anything above this limit has to be treated as a gift and the owner has no recourse to recover those funds.

When sold, the new owner can chose to pay off the loans or the old owner receives the amount back over the course of an agreed period - somewhere between 10-20 years.

And when that rich owner dies/is deposed/loses interest/goes bankrupt/is unable to move money out of their home country what happens to the club that depends upon a certain level of external income to survive?

If a club depends on money being donated from outside and there's no long-term guarantee of getting that coming in, how can that be deemed as sustainable?


qv Rushton & Diamonds, Gretna FC (and, indeed, Reading FC).

[Stranded]

At the end of the day if an owner wants to spend x funds on their club then they should be totally able to do so cleanly up front without any "shenanigans" or the hiding behind other methods of payment. But in doing it, it should be quite clear to all that the funds provided are not provided as a loan or in any way that saddles that club with debt. Then any financial come back should be against the individual(s) concerned and not the club.

Seems ffp, and the like, is primarily just there to keep the big clubs able to hoover all the big prizes up every season and **** off to anyone wanting to try and break in on that gravy train.

Always agreed on this - if some multi-billionaire wants to buy Slough Town and spend their own money to turn them into the biggest club in Europe, then they should be allowed to do so. The only caveat is only a certain amount can be loaned to the club and this must be at 0% interest - anything above this limit has to be treated as a gift and the owner has no recourse to recover those funds.

When sold, the new owner can chose to pay off the loans or the old owner receives the amount back over the course of an agreed period - somewhere between 10-20 years.

And when that rich owner dies/is deposed/loses interest/goes bankrupt/is unable to move money out of their home country what happens to the club that depends upon a certain level of external income to survive?

If a club depends on money being donated from outside and there's no long-term guarantee of getting that coming in, how can that be deemed as sustainable?


qv Rushton & Diamonds, Gretna FC (and, indeed, Reading FC).

Make the owner put X amount in Trust i.e. 2 years running costs to cover period after their death whilst the family decide if they wish to take on the mantel or sell.

[Snowflake Royal]

Always agreed on this - if some multi-billionaire wants to buy Slough Town and spend their own money to turn them into the biggest club in Europe, then they should be allowed to do so. The only caveat is only a certain amount can be loaned to the club and this must be at 0% interest - anything above this limit has to be treated as a gift and the owner has no recourse to recover those funds.

When sold, the new owner can chose to pay off the loans or the old owner receives the amount back over the course of an agreed period - somewhere between 10-20 years.

And when that rich owner dies/is deposed/loses interest/goes bankrupt/is unable to move money out of their home country what happens to the club that depends upon a certain level of external income to survive?

If a club depends on money being donated from outside and there's no long-term guarantee of getting that coming in, how can that be deemed as sustainable?


qv Rushton & Diamonds, Gretna FC (and, indeed, Reading FC).

Make the owner put X amount in Trust i.e. 2 years running costs to cover period after their death whilst the family decide if they wish to take on the mantel or sell.

Sounds completely unmanageable and unenforceable to me.

I much prefer making clubs live to their means. Then you get steady success that isn't as likely to just fall apart.

[Franchise FC]

And when that rich owner dies/is deposed/loses interest/goes bankrupt/is unable to move money out of their home country what happens to the club that depends upon a certain level of external income to survive?

If a club depends on money being donated from outside and there's no long-term guarantee of getting that coming in, how can that be deemed as sustainable?


qv Rushton & Diamonds, Gretna FC (and, indeed, Reading FC).

Make the owner put X amount in Trust i.e. 2 years running costs to cover period after their death whilst the family decide if they wish to take on the mantel or sell.

Sounds completely unmanageable and unenforceable to me.

I much prefer making clubs live to their means. Then you get steady success that isn't as likely to just fall apart.

Could you do us all a favour and define ‘living within their means’, please ?

[Snowflake Royal]

Make the owner put X amount in Trust i.e. 2 years running costs to cover period after their death whilst the family decide if they wish to take on the mantel or sell.

Sounds completely unmanageable and unenforceable to me.

I much prefer making clubs live to their means. Then you get steady success that isn't as likely to just fall apart.

Could you do us all a favour and define ‘living within their means’, please ?

Generally not spending more than income.

[Franchise FC]

Sounds completely unmanageable and unenforceable to me.

I much prefer making clubs live to their means. Then you get steady success that isn't as likely to just fall apart.

Could you do us all a favour and define ‘living within their means’, please ?

Generally not spending more than income.

But that doesn’t preclude the Man City sponsorship situation as they’re claiming it’s income, and given that it’s non-refundable there’s a good argument