allani Posted June 22 Share Posted June 22 On 20/06/2024 at 14:43, DevonIsAPlaceOnEarth said: Agree entirely, I think they see this as a sticking plaster approach until the league inevitably removes or severely loosens the restrictions. It's what happens when you get "football" people trying to create artificial rules that are designed to protect the interests of the status quo whilst at the same time they are desperately courting new owners to bring in more money to the game. The trouble is those new owners are getting fed up only being able to target finishing sixth or seventh and are exposing those rules for the sham that they are. No doubt the "football" people will try to close these loopholes but will almost certainly not have the foresight to assess what the impact might be. I mean short of banning transfers or introducing "limits" on transfer values what can you do? And if you do either of those things then the buying power of the Top 6 becomes much less important. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allani Posted June 22 Share Posted June 22 2 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said: It seems like the moment our proposal on the limitation was rejected we immediately embarked on a process of "f*** you" transfers that skirt the edges of the rules without breaking them. Which is pretty much exactly what Nas and Heck both said. "We're disappointed that our proposal was rejected. But we move to Phase 2." (paraphrased rather than directly quoted) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Steve Posted June 22 Share Posted June 22 (edited) 5 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said: It seems like the moment our proposal on the limitation was rejected we immediately embarked on a process of "f*** you" transfers that skirt the edges of the rules without breaking them. It's all chess. Nas picked his words very carefully, gotten legal advice and dangled the threat of it at the League. It's a question of who blinks first. NSWE have the ambition and the money to not back down against these anti-competition rules. Edited June 22 by The_Steve 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allani Posted June 22 Share Posted June 22 4 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said: It seems like the moment our proposal on the limitation was rejected we immediately embarked on a process of "f*** you" transfers that skirt the edges of the rules without breaking them. I also wonder whether we ever actually thought that our proposal wouldn't be rejected. Maybe this was always the plan? The rejection of increasing the losses permitted now just makes our case stronger for - "well everyone agreed that spending has to be tied to increasing revenue because that is fair - you now can't knock us for increasing our revenues better than you". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KentVillan Posted June 22 Share Posted June 22 Hope we have really good legal advice on this. Financially I doubt we’re causing ourselves any problems because the whole cash flow situation is an artificial consequence of badly written rules. But legally it feels like we’re in a grey area. Basically behaving like a cartel to manipulate the market, altho the manipulation isn’t corrupt in the usual sense… don’t really know what to make of it. Think it was forced on us by rules that are riddled with unintended consequences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allani Posted June 22 Share Posted June 22 1 minute ago, The_Steve said: It's all chess. Nas picked his words very carefully, gotten legal advice and dangled the threat of it at the League. It's a question of who blinks first. NSWE have the ambition and the money to not back down against these anti-competition rules. Yeah I don't think they ever thought the proposal would be accepted. Phase 2 will expose how ridiculously easy it is for a group of clubs to exploit the PSR rules to spend what they want to anyway and just "hide" losses through artificial revenue gains. At some point the FA / UEFA will do something that breaks European law and can get shot down in flames by a group of rich and powerful owners who have almost as much financial power as the owners of the "status quo" clubs - but significantly more business and legal acumen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaVilla Posted June 22 Share Posted June 22 9 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said: It seems like the moment our proposal on the limitation was rejected we immediately embarked on a process of "f*** you" transfers that skirt the edges of the rules without breaking them. it does seem that way doesnt it. it does go to show just how borked PSR is, its a joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post The_Steve Posted June 22 Popular Post Share Posted June 22 (edited) 10 minutes ago, allani said: Yeah I don't think they ever thought the proposal would be accepted. Phase 2 will expose how ridiculously easy it is for a group of clubs to exploit the PSR rules to spend what they want to anyway and just "hide" losses through artificial revenue gains. At some point the FA / UEFA will do something that breaks European law and can get shot down in flames by a group of rich and powerful owners who have almost as much financial power as the owners of the "status quo" clubs - but significantly more business and legal acumen. Indeed. I'd add that the appointment of Bjorn Schuurmans is significant in terms of protecting our assets tax wise, but also with the accumen to make a legal case for it and against the absurd structures we operate in. Bring on any lawsuit in the future, I say. The club has the expertise to fight it. Again, I'm throwing out a hypothetical, but the club is securing its future in very astute ways whilst exposing the utterly inept, unfair rules. Schuurmans has worked for KPMG, Kuwait Petrolum (head of tax), and a global tax head at a different global organisation. He's worked very closely with Nas over the years. We aren't messing around. Edited June 22 by The_Steve 5 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allani Posted June 22 Share Posted June 22 1 minute ago, KentVillan said: Hope we have really good legal advice on this. Financially I doubt we’re causing ourselves any problems because the whole cash flow situation is an artificial consequence of badly written rules. But legally it feels like we’re in a grey area. Basically behaving like a cartel to manipulate the market, altho the manipulation isn’t corrupt in the usual sense… don’t really know what to make of it. Think it was forced on us by rules that are riddled with unintended consequences. I hope they go with the cartel / market manipulation line - because that will give a very good lawyer a brilliant opening to attack PSR for being exactly that. In almost any other business these rules would be illegal. I'd still reckon that a good legal team would be able to prove that the rules break European / international law. It won't take many owners to start backing Nas before the authorities start to feel really uncomfortable bending to the wishes to the Sly 6. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punkiller1981 Posted June 22 Share Posted June 22 Away from all the talk of corruption which we all know exists and the PSR rules which are geared up to keep the “top” clubs at the top we have found a way of operating which is within the rules and actually not that different to how other clubs like Chelsea have operated for years and as much as selling youngsters to meet obligations of made up rules doesn’t sit right with me the idea of a business being limited on how much they can invest to improve said business sits even worse with me. No other industry I can think of has such anti competitive rules, it’s like Sainsbury’s saying to the supermarket rule setters Aldi are building to many stores they need to sell some before they can build more, it would be illegal to have rules like that. So what I really want to know is with the dougie deal, Tim for £9 mill, Kellyman for £19 and maybe Duran going to this must solve our PSR issues and some for now and give us massive scope to go big ? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dodgyknees Posted June 22 Share Posted June 22 3 minutes ago, punkiller1981 said: Away from all the talk of corruption which we all know exists and the PSR rules which are geared up to keep the “top” clubs at the top we have found a way of operating which is within the rules and actually not that different to how other clubs like Chelsea have operated for years and as much as selling youngsters to meet obligations of made up rules doesn’t sit right with me the idea of a business being limited on how much they can invest to improve said business sits even worse with me. No other industry I can think of has such anti competitive rules, it’s like Sainsbury’s saying to the supermarket rule setters Aldi are building to many stores they need to sell some before they can build more, it would be illegal to have rules like that. So what I really want to know is with the dougie deal, Tim for £9 mill, Kellyman for £19 and maybe Duran going to this must solve our PSR issues and some for now and give us massive scope to go big ? Yes it solves the issue (now and near future) and will give us a lot of breathing room. I anticipate a big summer. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enda Posted June 22 Share Posted June 22 Assuming Doug goes (with two coming in), and the rest of our business that looks certain (Kellyman, Tim, Dobbins, but not Duran) gets finished, where are we with profit/loss this month? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MSvillain Posted June 22 Share Posted June 22 3 minutes ago, Enda said: Assuming Doug goes (with two coming in), and the rest of our business that looks certain (Kellyman, Tim, Dobbins, but not Duran) gets finished, where are we with profit/loss this month? Think Swiss Ramble had our gap at about £60m so the Doug deal alone should’ve got us across the line Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul514 Posted June 22 Share Posted June 22 9 minutes ago, duke313 said: Make you think about these other signings, we must be going HUGE in the later part of the window. Next season we don’t have jacks sale on the accounts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duke313 Posted June 22 Share Posted June 22 7 minutes ago, paul514 said: Next season we don’t have jacks sale on the accounts Isn’t that covered by Luiz, Kellyman and Tim sales? And possibly Duran. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Steve Posted June 22 Share Posted June 22 We did tell the League we'd find inventive ways to work within PSR. Hah. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul514 Posted June 22 Share Posted June 22 14 minutes ago, duke313 said: Isn’t that covered by Luiz, Kellyman and Tim sales? And possibly Duran. Of course but people are getting carried away Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterSw Posted June 22 Share Posted June 22 1 hour ago, MSvillain said: Think Swiss Ramble had our gap at about £60m so the Doug deal alone should’ve got us across the line Think someone said the other day that the Swiss Ramble quotes were a bit wide of the mark. Thought we we more in the £30m range. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MSvillain Posted June 22 Share Posted June 22 Just now, PeterSw said: Think someone said the other day that the Swiss Ramble quotes were a bit wide of the mark. Thought we we more in the £30m range. Yeah Matt Burton on twitter had it closer to £30m, truth somewhere in between those 2 numbers I imagine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulMcGrath_5 Posted June 22 Share Posted June 22 Either way, sales so far more than cover any PSR issues. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts