Financial Fair Play (general thread)

[rossdapep]

Why do people keep labeling us as part of the "big 6 cartel"???

It's really irritating because they are suggesting that we do what we like but won't let smaller clubs do the same. Protecting the top 6 and shutting others out.

In reality, we are actually fighting the monopoly clubs and trying to prevent the league from becoming a 1 or 2 club league.

People can't seem to wrap their head around that if every club operated like us, they would have much more chance of success and getting somewhere.

Forest, Chelsea and Everton are examples of the opposite. Spurs are trying to prevent that and keep the league fair.

If a club operated like us or Brighton they'd have much more stability.

Winds me.up that some can't see that and just brand us in ith the likes of City and Chelsea.

 

[SirHarryHotspur]

Yes I knew that already. Point is earlier you were arguing nothing would happen because "it was the other guy guv" this shows they knew what they were buying and what the potential outcomes would/could be.

Didn't say nothing would happen, just think a heavy fine is more likely hence putting aside £100 million and maybe a small points deduction , all the sensational stories going around about relegation for Chelsea are OTT

 

[whitechina]

Been asking that myself. Find it hard that other premier league bigwigs are letting it be swept under the carpet

Very unlike DL to let that slide

 

[Trix]

Didn't say nothing would happen, just think a heavy fine is more likely hence putting aside £100 million and maybe a small points deduction , all the sensational stories going around about relegation for Chelsea are OTT

I guess we will find that out. Fact is no one knows because this is uncharted territory.

 

[yankspurs]

I guess we will find that out. Fact is no one knows because this is uncharted territory.

It’s uncharted territory but thinking logically I don’t think there’s any way they can deduct points or give out too hefty a fine. It happened under previous management. Unless there’s evidence of similar happening after Roman & Marina were ousted, this shouldn’t be much of anything. Now this is being found as a result of the ffp stuff with boehly’s massive expenditures then it might amount to a heavier penalty.

 

[Westmorlandspur]

Why do people keep labeling us as part of the "big 6 cartel"???

It's really irritating because they are suggesting that we do what we like but won't let smaller clubs do the same. Protecting the top 6 and shutting others out.

In reality, we are actually fighting the monopoly clubs and trying to prevent the league from becoming a 1 or 2 club league.

People can't seem to wrap their head around that if every club operated like us, they would have much more chance of success and getting somewhere.

Forest, Chelsea and Everton are examples of the opposite. Spurs are trying to prevent that and keep the league fair.

If a club operated like us or Brighton they'd have much more stability.

Winds me.up that some can't see that and just brand us in ith the likes of City and Chelsea.

It’s a big 5 and we aren’t in it. I remember when Everton were in the big 5 with us.
Last 10 yrs…30 domestic trophies plus this seasons Lge Cup(Liverpool) and Prem Lge …will be one of 3
Thats 32 trophies ….30 have been won by the big 5….city, Utd, Arse, Chelsea and Liverpool.
2 by that second div team….Leicester.
Lets hope Cov can win the FA Cup.

 

[SirHarryHotspur]

If Chelsea are really about to be in the sticky brown stuff then the tabloid newspapers don’t seem to be aware of it as they are linking them with every £50m player on the market and also Osimhen at £150m.

as others have said, I’ll believe it when I see it as we all thought Roman being exiled would be their downfall yet they went on and spent a billion quid. Also what happened to that 1.5b loan Roman gave them, how come nobody has looked at that from a FFP point of view?

Do loans from owners count towards FFP I have no idea, as of 2022 Brighton owed Bloom £499 million which when you consider the value of Brighton compared to Chelsea might even be a higher percentage loan compared to Roman's

However, the club recorded losses of £270m ($336m) in the four seasons to 2021/22, their accounts showed, and remained highly reliant on Bloom, to whom they were £499m ($621m) in debt at that point

 

[Monkey boy]

Do loans from owners count towards FFP I have no idea, as of 2022 Brighton owed Bloom £499 million which when you consider the value of Brighton compared to Chelsea might even be a higher percentage loan compared to Roman's

However, the club recorded losses of £270m ($336m) in the four seasons to 2021/22, their accounts showed, and remained highly reliant on Bloom, to whom they were £499m ($621m) in debt at that point

yes of course they do otherwise clubs wouldn’t be finding clever ways of over inflating sponsorship deals, paying people off shore accounts etc. if all they had to do was “loan” the owners money.

 

[BehindEnemyLines]

Do loans from owners count towards FFP I have no idea, as of 2022 Brighton owed Bloom £499 million which when you consider the value of Brighton compared to Chelsea might even be a higher percentage loan compared to Roman's

However, the club recorded losses of £270m ($336m) in the four seasons to 2021/22, their accounts showed, and remained highly reliant on Bloom, to whom they were £499m ($621m) in debt at that point

I'm not certain, but I suspect that isn't a loan in the traditional sense, but leveraged ownership - (very simplified) a company borrows money to buy the club, and once bought, they effectively transfer the loan into the clubs name......the interest on the loan then becomes a charge against the company accounts.

 

[SirHarryHotspur]

I'm not certain, as I've never dealt with Brighton, but I suspect that isn't a loan in the traditional sense, but leveraged ownership - (very simplified) a company borrows money to buy the club, and once bought, they effectively transfer the loan into the clubs name......the interest on the loan then becomes a charge against the company accounts.

This is from Swiss Ramble on Brighton, I find it strange that some quote Brighton as being such a well run club but are they self sufficient.

Brighton's gross financial debt increased by £35m from £374m to £409m, almost entirely from owner Tony Bloom in the shape of an interest-free, unsecured loan of £406m. Bloom provided an additional £70m last year, allowing the club to reduce the external loan by £34m to £3m (fully repaid after year-end)

 

[BehindEnemyLines]

This is from Swiss Ramble on Brighton, I find it strange that some quote Brighton as being such a well run club but are they self sufficient.

Brighton's gross financial debt increased by £35m from £374m to £409m, almost entirely from owner Tony Bloom in the shape of an interest-free, unsecured loan of £406m. Bloom provided an additional £70m last year, allowing the club to reduce the external loan by £34m to £3m (fully repaid after year-end)

A loan in itself is perfectly acceptable for P&S (up to £35m a year).....however, interest would normally be charged against the clubs accounts at market rates, and they would be unable to spend it without increasing income by an equitable amount - that is why Newcastle have some unstuck (with loads of money that they can't spend).

 

[ComfortablyNumb]

But the PSR rules are exactly that, rules. They are the agreed terms all clubs must abide by to play in the Premier League.

They are not laws. There are no courts. The rules themselves explictly bar cases going to the CAS (which is where UEFA rules came unstuck). All matters are concluded by disciplinary panel and a seperate appeal panel. Decision of the appeal panel is final.

Yes, the rules and panels are set up to operate like a court - proof is 'balance of probabilities', panel must have held judicial positions previously. But, it is catagorically and fundamentally NOT a court, and there is no recourse to any court.

It's why 'precedents' from decades ago won't work. It is not a court. It is not a legal matter.

Clubs either broke the rules, or they didn't. That is what it comes down to.

The PL is basically a club, with rules that it can insist its members abide by, but ultimately laws still apply to it. Clubs can always appeal to the courts if they feel that the PL is acting wrongly. It’s a longstanding principle in English law that you cannot sign away your basic rights.

 

[elfy]

The PL is basically a club, with rules that it can insist its members abide by, but ultimately laws still apply to it. Clubs can always appeal to the courts if they feel that the PL is acting wrongly. It’s a longstanding principle in English law that you cannot sign away your basic rights.

Part of the rules clubs must sign up is that the decision of the panel and appeal panel are final, and the CAS explicitly has no jurisdiction, no cases can be bought before them.

There is no statute that covers it, ergo: there is no route through the courts. There are no basic rights applicable, as it's simple: if you don't want to accept the rules, you do not need to sign up to them. You just can't be part of the club. The only scenario where you would have a claim based upon basic rights are if the PL didn't follow their own rules. No interpretation, a clear and definitive failure to abide by it's own rules.

Which is why IMO, the most likely route for the likes of City and Chelsea is to change the rules. Which as more clubs like Everton, Forest and Leicester get caught out by them becomes more likely to be agreed to by a majority of clubs (sadly).

 

[ComfortablyNumb]

Part of the rules clubs must sign up is that the decision of the panel and appeal panel are final, and the CAS explicitly has no jurisdiction, no cases can be bought before

My point is that this is unenforceable under English laws. There is always a recourse to the courts. Not to CAS, though, but English law applies to everyone, always. In England , anyway.

 

[elfy]

My point is that this is unenforceable under English laws. There is always a recourse to the courts. Not to CAS, though, but English law applies to everyone, always. In England , anyway.

Which law are you talking about? There is no law, no statute, no common law that would/could apply that would be enforeable by a court.

The only possible court I can see that may be able to hear a case would be the CAS, and that is explicitly excluded in PL rules

EDIT: With the exception of the PL breaching their own rules which I said earlier. The rules are in effect a contract, so there would be recourse through the courts for breach of contract. Applying the rules as written wouldn't count though

 

[ComfortablyNumb]

Which law are you talking about? There is no law, no statute, no common law that would/could apply that would be enforeable by a court.

The only possible court I can see that may be able to hear a case would be the CAS, and that is explicitly excluded in PL rules

I’m not referring to any particular statute. I’m saying that no PL rule can stop a club invoking English law. I don’t know what laws might apply.

 

[elfy]

I’m not referring to any particular statute. I’m saying that no PL rule can stop a club invoking English law. I don’t know what laws might apply.

You keep saying 'English law' like it means something! There is no law they could invoke. There is no court they can bring a case before.

Unless the PL acts so egregiously as to completely ignore it's own rules as written - then there is a case for breach of contract. But outside of that, there is no legal option.

 

[SirHarryHotspur]

Can a club take the Premier League to a civil court of law , I don't know but apparently at a recent PL meeting one club did threaten legal action over a rule change.
Perhaps someone could argue that the PL is guilty of negligence in enforcing it's own rules and take them to court.
Still would like to know how Boehly & Co found out about the illegal undercover payments by Abramovitch owned companies before they had even signed the deal to buy Chelsea and the PL & UEFA were unable to unearth any illegal dealings by Abramovitch ever since he has been in charge at Chelsea.

 

[Westmorlandspur]

Can a club take the Premier League to a civil court of law , I don't know but apparently at a recent PL meeting one club did threaten legal action over a rule change.
Perhaps someone could argue that the PL is guilty of negligence in enforcing it's own rules and take them to court.
Still would like to know how Boehly & Co found out about the illegal undercover payments by Abramovitch owned companies before they had even signed the deal to buy Chelsea and the PL & UEFA were unable to unearth any illegal dealings by Abramovitch ever since he has been in charge at Chelsea.

Maybe they did but shoved it under the carpet. Some newspapers had stuff on Abramovich and the owners decided against publishing because they thought he might sue them into oblivion. That was from Matt Lawton, now of the Times , chief investigative reporter. Said that after Abramovich left Chelsea.
This is why countries should never own a club, too much influence and you cannot get at them
Chelsea was akin to Russia owning Chelsea. It was certainly Russias money, not his.
The City decision will be very, very interesting . Government will no doubt get involved, .

 

[Westmorlandspur]

Anyway, where are our financial results . Are they trying to hide them or are they going to be announced with a flourish before kick off today.