Jump to content
wattagit

Have I missed Something regards If We Get Bought

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Lee Strafford said:

Whoever you are your being super pedantic and coming across very aggressive.

 

My point still stands they leverage Man City across their corporate structure to deal with FFP. A big enough proportion of value is accrued to the Man City brand.

 

 

 

 

Well I can only apologise if you feel I am being 'super pedantic'. I'm sure your point still stands but you did say that Man City are the parent company of all of the football brands and I hardly think that pointing out that they don't own any of them is being super pedantic.

 

Your initial post certainly gave the impression that our owner was putting in loans instead of equity and that this was at least part of the problem when I'm sure you aware that the maximum allowable equity investment for FFP is £8m per season so classifying as loans or equity beyond that has absolutely no bearing on FFP.

 

By the way, love the 'whoever you are'. Maybe I should have put my name as my user profile just to make sure everyone knew who I was. Sorry if that's very aggressive but given that you have taken to dismiss my factually correct responses to your made up posts which such a flippant comment, I think it is justified.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
  • Sad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Hookowl said:

 

But that is still football related revenue, not money from unrelated dealings.

It's not related to Man City revenue so it's not allowable under FFP. If it was that easy, why are they using shady companies to pay image rights payments or falsifying sponsor payments. The Man City corporate structure is complicated and probably be designed to be so but income from other subsidiaries of the parent company do nothing to offset FFP because it is not allowed to be included. I'm sure some of this income is included in the figures in one way or another but that's why they keep getting caught out.

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mention of the club being up for sale and it all kicks off again. Here we go.

 

Can we be nice to each other please. WAWAW? And it’s the season of goodwill to all men.

 

Ta nicely.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Lee Strafford, I have a question which you may know the answer to.....

 

Is/was Sir Dave Richards involved in a consultant/advisor role at SWFC re. FFP compliance in the same way as he once was at Leicester City?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, sonofbert2 said:

 

Any new owners will work under the same rules and inherit the position we are currently in.

 

There is no reset button but the advantage is they will pick up the remaining assets, once FFP is balanced up and have fresh funds from when the button is reset by the EFL and our 3 year cycle starts again.

 

In the very short-term they may have new ideas to inject funds without breaking the rules and thus narrow the gap which increases funds left over to work with from any player sales but there is zero scope for new owners to wade in and splash any cash they like and start all over again from scratch.

 

Villa's new owners were allowed to settle the outstanding bills with HMRC but still face the decision of whether to sell players in January to balance or if they are  "allowed" invest further based on their league position when they arrive at the window (not long) to "guarantee" promotion because otherwise they're in big trouble.

 

Rules is rules unless off course they are changed, which could very well happen, anytime soon.

 

The current situation is unsustainable and there are more than us and Villa in potential bother in relation to the current limits.

Iv'e been under the impression that the 3 year period is a rolling one ongoing so no reset. A club's last 2 years determines what they can lose in the 3rd year. Happy to be corrected if I misunderstood or it has changed.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Triple O said:

Iv'e been under the impression that the 3 year period is a rolling one ongoing so no reset. A club's last 2 years determines what they can lose in the 3rd year. Happy to be corrected if I misunderstood or it has changed.

 

You're right - it's previous 2 + current with the 39m allowed across the 3. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, londonowl said:

 

Well I can only apologise if you feel I am being 'super pedantic'. I'm sure your point still stands but you did say that Man City are the parent company of all of the football brands and I hardly think that pointing out that they don't own any of them is being super pedantic.

 

Your initial post certainly gave the impression that our owner was putting in loans instead of equity and that this was at least part of the problem when I'm sure you aware that the maximum allowable equity investment for FFP is £8m per season so classifying as loans or equity beyond that has absolutely no bearing on FFP.

 

By the way, love the 'whoever you are'. Maybe I should have put my name as my user profile just to make sure everyone knew who I was. Sorry if that's very aggressive but given that you have taken to dismiss my factually correct responses to your made up posts which such a flippant comment, I think it is justified.

Not really trying hard to be constructive at all are you?

 

They leverage Man City across the rest of the group, this is how it works. That is the salient point and what I was saying, it's true to say that it is not the ultimate topco in the structure but Man City is the highest operating company in the structure and it benefits from the wider group because of the brand, that was my point and you know it. That is the clear basis of refering to your pedantry.

 

Also your being a a bit of an arse your when you attempt to dismiss my point about investing via debt and not being transparent about source of funds as being harmful for dealings with the EFL when they are both publicly stated policy points from the EFL.

 

Anyhoo I see little point carrying on talking to you as your clearly part of the pr unit employed by the club.......

  • Agree 2
  • Disagree 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, sonofbert2 said:

@Lee Strafford, I have a question which you may know the answer to.....

 

Is/was Sir Dave Richards involved in a consultant/advisor role at SWFC re. FFP compliance in the same way as he once was at Leicester City?

Yes, he was initially engaged while Mandaric was named owner of our club.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Lee Strafford said:

Yes, he was initially engaged while Mandaric was named owner of our club.

 

Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Lee Strafford said:

 

Anyhoo I see little point carrying on talking to you as your clearly part of the pr unit employed by the club.......

 

TBF - I wouldn’t have thought so.

 

In another thread, he was criticising the Club, bemoaning the cost of membership and, that because of the pricing his kids aren’t being exposed to Wednesday.

 

It was an excellent post - that’s why I remembered it.

 

.

Edited by ReadingOwl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Hookowl said:

As I say these are the old UEFA FFP rules, whether they apply to the new EFL P&S rules I'm not sure.


 

The relevant regulations are:

EFL Regulations: Appendix 5 - Financial Fair Play Regulations

https://www.efl.com/-more/governance/efl-rules--regulations/appendix-5---financial-fair-play-regulations/

Financial Fair Play is an umbrella term for different regulations applying to the Championship, League 1 and League 2.

For League 1 and League 2 they are referred to as Salary Cost Management Protocols. The Premier League have their own Short Term Cost Control and Sustainability Provisions (STCC & SP). 

 

The current Championship rules are in Part 2: Championship Profitability and Sustainability Rules (which kicked in from Season 2016/17)

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Lee Strafford said:

 

 

Anyhoo I see little point carrying on talking to you as your clearly part of the pr unit employed by the club.......

 

:tango:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, londonowl said:

 

To help folk understand, you have to understand yourself. LS has enough of a name that some people will believe what he says as fact. He is absolutely wrong about putting equity into the club which makes it look like the owner is tucking us up by not doing it.

 

He is also absolutely wrong about Man City and by justifying it through his connections, it just perpetuates the myth.

 

If you would like to question me further or fact check any of the information I have posted, feel free. I'm not in the business of making stuff up for effect.

 

I have nothing against LS at all but he was offering to help the Chairman out with advice the other day and then posts absolute nonsense about FFP so it has to be a complete lack if understanding of the rules or something else.

 

I am very rarely so antagonistic in my posts but it really annoyed me to see so some respected by a lot of fans on here basically digging out the chairman for not putting equity into the club when the rules don't allow for it anyway.

Yes you can help me understand Londonowl if you can. Profit ? does this include the unearned income that relegated premiership clubs get handed them. Sustainability ? If a chairman is prepared to pump in capital investment in the form of gift rather than loans, why is this not sustainable. Who's rules are these ? The EFL or Premiership instigated. Finally are the EFL chairman the ones that set their own rules ? Finally, if the Prem/Sky set their own rules and the EFL do likewise then what is the role of the FA ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Triple O said:

Iv'e been under the impression that the 3 year period is a rolling one ongoing so no reset. A club's last 2 years determines what they can lose in the 3rd year. Happy to be corrected if I misunderstood or it has changed.

You are correct. The 3 year period doesn't 'end' and there is no reset. Think of it like a slide rule (yes, I'm that old) with a 3 year window sliding along a scale of calendar years.

The 'window' represents the current year (T1) and the 2 previous years (T -1, and T -2). Each new year the window slides along and the old T becomes T-1, the old T -1 becomes T -2  and the old T -2 drops out of the reckoning.

Actually under the new P&S rules there are also forward reporting requirements as well. So in effect the monitoring is over a 5 year period (T -2 to T +2)

 

Simples

Edited by HarrowbyOwl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, HarrowbyOwl said:

You are correct. The 3 year period doesn't 'end' and there is no reset. Think of it like a slide rule (yes, I'm that old) with a 3 year window sliding along a scale of calendar years.

The 'window' represents the current year (T1) and the 2 previous years (T -1, and T -2). Each new year the window slides along and the old T becomes T-1, the old T -1 becomes T -2  and the old T -2 drops out of the reckoning.

Actually under the new P&S rules there are also forward reporting requirements as well. So in effect the monitoring is over a 5 year period (T -2 to T +2)

 

Simples

And breathe. Answered it to a T

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lee Strafford said:

Anyhoo I see little point carrying on talking to you as your clearly part of the pr unit employed by the club.......

 

1263960712_Laugh3.gif.fbd69090a095b20803b410aa5bf70a1b.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Sonny said:

Welcome to Series 245 Epsiode 34 of ‘Man on Internet gets Angry instead of Accepting he is Wrong’.

 

Guest appearance from Straff in episode 35.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Lee Strafford said:

Not really trying hard to be constructive at all are you?

 

They leverage Man City across the rest of the group, this is how it works. That is the salient point and what I was saying, it's true to say that it is not the ultimate topco in the structure but Man City is the highest operating company in the structure and it benefits from the wider group because of the brand, that was my point and you know it. That is the clear basis of refering to your pedantry.

 

Also your being a a bit of an arse your when you attempt to dismiss my point about investing via debt and not being transparent about source of funds as being harmful for dealings with the EFL when they are both publicly stated policy points from the EFL.

 

Anyhoo I see little point carrying on talking to you as your clearly part of the pr unit employed by the club.......

 

And that my friends is the end of this pointless conversation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, nevthelodgemoorowl said:

Yes you can help me understand Londonowl if you can. Profit ? does this include the unearned income that relegated premiership clubs get handed them. Sustainability ? If a chairman is prepared to pump in capital investment in the form of gift rather than loans, why is this not sustainable. Who's rules are these ? The EFL or Premiership instigated. Finally are the EFL chairman the ones that set their own rules ? Finally, if the Prem/Sky set their own rules and the EFL do likewise then what is the role of the FA ? 

I guess that some of your questions are rhetorical but I will answer anyway.

 

Yes, income for P&S purposes includes parachute payments.

 

The idea with Sustainability is that a chairman can't just pull the plug and leave the club fecked. Sunderland are a good example of this. Running at a loss funded by the owner until Ellis Short decided he'd had enough and refused to put any more money in. Had he been pumping £200m a year in to cover all kinds of massive contracts, the club would have gone bust overnight. As it was, losses were (somewhat) manageable and the club has been able to move forward.

 

These specific rules are the EFL's. Based around UEFA's fair play regulations but the EFL rules are set by the EFL however there are now contractual financial links between the EFL and PL so they are set through consultation with the PL.

 

EFL chairman do theoretically set their own rules. Changes are voted through by clubs but as above, the PL also have (some) say before it gets to the voting stage.

 

Finally, The FA doesn't have any role in FFP/P&S directly though as the national regulator of football clubs it does have some involvement (for example, football clubs falsifying accounts would actually fall under the FA's remit). 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, londonowl said:

I guess that some of your questions are rhetorical but I will answer anyway.

 

Yes, income for P&S purposes includes parachute payments.

 

The idea with Sustainability is that a chairman can't just pull the plug and leave the club fecked. Sunderland are a good example of this. Running at a loss funded by the owner until Ellis Short decided he'd had enough and refused to put any more money in. Had he been pumping £200m a year in to cover all kinds of massive contracts, the club would have gone bust overnight. As it was, losses were (somewhat) manageable and the club has been able to move forward.

 

These specific rules are the EFL's. Based around UEFA's fair play regulations but the EFL rules are set by the EFL however there are now contractual financial links between the EFL and PL so they are set through consultation with the PL.

 

EFL chairman do theoretically set their own rules. Changes are voted through by clubs but as above, the PL also have (some) say before it gets to the voting stage.

 

Finally, The FA doesn't have any role in FFP/P&S directly though as the national regulator of football clubs it does have some involvement (for example, football clubs falsifying accounts would actually fall under the FA's remit). 

 

 

Thanks for that Londonowl. Further to this, could sustainability and profitability be negated by individual clubs placing a bond with the EFL effectively insuring the investment against doing a runner. It seems strange to me that the head of any business would not seek to ensure that as much cash as possible flowed into the business. Placing Bonds on player recruitment and wages would serve two purposes 1) Money into the business 2) given the investment x 2 a damping down on the cash paid in fees and wages for overage tiring ex superstars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...