Forthcoming rules from 2024-25 season: - Any team whose official 1st team kit (as of the 2023-24 season) does not have either red or blue as the primary colour, will start EVERY subsequent season on -10 points. - Any team located more than 240 miles from London will have to play all their official league and cup games away from home. - Any club whose official club name begins with N will be deducted 5 points every season.
Any club with more than one Howe will be deducted 5 points for every additional Howe. Additionally any clubs who have a player by the name of Burn starting a league game will be deducted 1 point for each game that player starts.
Newcastle are in-between a rock and a hard place with Aston Villa because most the big 6 don't want them competing for obvious reasons to their own financial interests and the clubs below don't want it being more difficult to stay up..... nufc will never get the vote they want. They'll keep voting on new rules again, again and again. I find myself hoping for Government intervention, but I wouldn't trust them either.
Right thing to do. However the comparison should be made with the best sponsorship deals signed by other clubs and not what they think we could get from a 3rd party willing to sponsor Newcastle. So Etihad are allowed to provide Man City with £80million/year for stadium naming rights and shirt sponsors - Aramco or Saudi should be able to throw a similar amount our way.
Don't agree with this actually. If FFP is kept then the fair market value for us wouldn't be the same as for example Man Utd. It would logically be a smaller sum ss we have less fans etc. We shouldn't be able to get round that by using associated companies. I agree however with whoever said the owners should be allowed to put in whatever they want but not by loans but simply paying the money in to cover whatever relevant expenses need to be covered and guaranteed.
That was me on another thread and I am glad of your approval. The entire point of this FFP bollocks was to encourage owners to invest in clubs and increase revenue. They have slowly turned into anti-competition nonsense. Again, I must repeat, the only clubs that have ever had problems, are the ones owned by skint owners. Skint in the grand scheme of things. Newcastle United - Ashley. Who slowly asset stripped Newcastle into a Championship club, punching above its weight. The Glazers, who have allowed Man U to rot, letting one of the greatest stadiums in England disintegrate. Portsmouth owner, who's name I forget, who used dodgy bank loans and false statements to buy the club and lump his debt on it. This happens a lot in the EFL and has absolutely nothing to do with FFP. Its all meant to be dealt with by the owners test, which our owners passed. Even if they pass it though, they're beholden by rules to control dodgy skint flint owners.
In my mind the point of it is more to stop a scenario where say for example your revenue is 100m. But you spend £200m a year in wages and the owner covers £100m difference. Yeah your owners are super rich and can afford it and can prove it so that’s all fine. But what happens if the owners sell up? Or decide one day they don’t fancy covering difference with their own money. Suddenly you’re making 100m loss on wages every year. Now all of a sudden there’s an absolute panic and you’re having to offload a load of players on crazy wages to balance the books. If that can’t be done you’re losing more and more money. What then? club goes into admin. All the support staff are cut as easy to do that and loads lose their job etc. FFP isn’t really a thing anymore, it’s profit and sustainability and mainly ensuring your wages aren’t over certain % of income. If get the point that ffp stops clubs investing and it’s easy to say ‘we’re owned by a state with unlimited money so should be able to spend it’ but it isn’t necessarily brought in for those type of owners. It’s there to stop irresponsible owners spending more and more money they can’t afford putting clubs in more and more danger. You say the only clubs that have had problems are those that are skint. But isn’t that because we have some sort of control already? If we didn’t have any over the last 15 years do you not think more clubs would have gone broke with poor owners and chasing the prem dream by now?
I get it. Liverpool fans (and others that feel threatened) don't want other teams to be competing so will always roll out the PSR revenue vs wages line... If we'd been able to build a squad that was getting into the CL each year without having our hands tied behind our back, while our owners built the revenues (which themselves are already building by being in CL each year (ex.) plus all the commercial deals already happening), then we're moving more quickly to be compliant and or revenues would grow in line with that quite quickly too. Each year we do better, the "fair value" sponsorship deals are all opening up for us too... Look at Chelsea. They were nowt of a club... now, one of Europe's big hitters, getting heavily weighted UEFA coefficient points (biggest swindle) etc when they qualify again. Built on Roman's money. Their revenues were nowt... but they had investment and grew. It's a simple trend. There have to be guarantees from the owners to secure debt over an allowable loss factor on the club's PSR calc (or similar). If the owners are prepared to spunk it away - let them, but they have to safeguard the club if they walk and leave it riddled with ****e debt. Should be legally binding and part of the ownership deal. Anyone suggesting PSR is anything other than a racket at this stage is quite frankly absurd. It's there, in the main, to protect those that feel they have no place being challenged.
Sorry started reading then lost interest after 5th word where you clearly couldn’t be bothered to read my actual post and just turned it into a ‘rival argument’ post.
If you didn't read past that, then fine. No skin off my nose. Not a rival argument post at all, but those fans also consumed by organic, historical growth (mainly Liverpool and to a slightly lesser extent Manchester Utd fans)) always play the same tune about the current PSR - as it suits them.
Point is there should at the very least be an allowance for direct owner investment as long as the club isn’t liable. Cash injections are allowed in literally every walk of life. PSR/FFP only serves to protect the established order. It’s the same in any walk of life, the rich can and will do what’s necessary to protect themselves. I mean, when they start talking about sanctions for inflated sponsors it’s literally everyone vs Newcastle. It’s 20 years too late as far as Chelsea and City are concerned, but they’re trying everything they can to stop anyone else - specifically Newcastle - threatening. They won’t succeed because at some point they’ll chuck something unlawful in and then the house of cards collapses.
