Rob26

I'm sure its for cash flow, which is plugging holes to buy time to sell it really like you say he is taking a hit on his potential exit fee by adding to your liabilities rather than putting more in. if you intended going into administration you would crush the money you have in the club, the administrators would just find a cheap deal and for the money he has put in that he is owed he would either get pennies on the pound or time limited repayments based on what league the club were in, which normally ends in the seller getting short changed. getting loans kicks the can down the road and keeps you in control of your exit from the sale of your club.

yeah if you dont punish the club for breaching ffp or not paying their bills even if it is unfair for fans then breaches will happen more and more, people who knowingly break ffp will mostly welcome financial penalties for the owners, because they would probs pay to be allowed to put the money in. you can have to have consequences with points etc in addition to fines for cases that require it or they will just take the punishment personally so the club can carry on breaching what ever they wanted. clubs have to be punished even if hurts the fans also on their other point i would like to see some numbers on how clubs outside of division one financially operated before the premier league, this statement makes out that there is a few teams at the top and all the clubs below are feeding them and not being properly compensated for this (no doubt because many clubs operate at a loss) but surely because of the premier league there is far more money around in these leagues below now than there has ever been. watching old documentaries about football and finances the pre-premier league years do not strike me as being years where everyone outside of the top flight was making lots of money with their football clubs, it come across as the opposite and most clubs being badly run and not making money at all, and before the premier league clubs were a much bigger mess financially than they are now, even if the debt levels maybe are more, a lot of that is down to the owners operating the club at a loss you can pump more money into the clubs outside the premier league and its very naïve to believe that would make the clubs receiving the money solvent. it would just mean there is more money to pay wages/fee's for players and clubs will take advantage of it. the only way you will change that is by forcing clubs to not make significant losses, at the moment they basically saying it's fine for you to loose £10m+ a season which cumulatively is not fine in the long run as adds up. of course you are limited to reforming this as other countries need to fall in line at the same time, so you probs have a never ending issue with this, as no one is probs going to agree to be limited by stricter rules (as I imagine it reduces the £ value of many clubs) if it was for me I would look to slowly remove the allowed losses every year. maybe knock down annually allowed losses upper limit by 1m every few years. if you put it in place now for 3.5+ seasons time for the first 1m reduction (for championship) then there is more than enough time for clubs to make sure they are compliant, if it meant clubs could not spend as much on fee's and wages then I'm sure the figures paid would adjust accordingly, we all saw with covid how when there wasn't as much money around that transfer fee's for a short while took a hit and free agents didn't command the same money they used to. but good luck getting clubs to agree to being limited in what they can do, I imagine clubs that may want to sell up or invest will vote against and only those who want to reduce costs agree to try and bring others down while they do it :laugh:. only thing that is making clubs get closer to being solvent each year is the goverment making the money worth less and less with inflation so the amount they owe is worth less than ever :laugh:. would love to see our country be the first that would make efforts to slowly force clubs to become solvent, that 10m+ your allowed to lose every year must only be worth 7m now after the last few years we have had :laugh:

the fact he is able to and getting loans shows they wont go into administration as he can borrow to plug the cashflow while trying to find someone to give him some of his cash back with a sale, which must be the end goal.

https://www.wba.co.uk/news/west-bromwich-albion-group-limited-secures-additional-msd-funding last year wba borrowed another 20m from msd

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-12779925/Everton-Burnley-Leeds-Leicester.html EXCLUSIVE: Everton are unhappy £300m compensation claim from Burnley, Leeds and Leicester will be heard by the SAME disciplinary panel that docked them 10 points wonder if the fine comes out your ffp allowance and puts them in breech again, it must be an allowed expense or it could be never ending I suppose :laugh:, bound to be paid out over several years anyways not sure why you have to pay off both leeds and Leicester, did the results Everton got vs both teams take the team that come 3rd last down? If so its surely a stretch to assume if everton did not overspend on ffp that they would of got 6 points off everton being they are relegated teams, at best I think you could argue they would get their average points per game they obtained from everyone else. but then you can't just afford the relegated teams that privilege (if they are) I feel you would have to allow every team in the league the same outcome and see how they all would stack up if that was the case, very messy way to look at things and you could have compensation cases all over the league :laugh:. I would think that one of them are relegated in Everton's place out of leeds and leiscter and only one of them should have a claim with burnley.

like this i just read haha some reach trying that haha I'm glad they thought about it that way as it makes total sense that they never lost anything other than unrealised gains/losses, when you think about it - it's a have your cake and eat it situation

im only a few pages in on that 40 page everton doc, but am I right in reading that both sides agreed their was a breach, BPL said 19m but everton said its more like 9m (probs to try and get it under a threshold of a smaller breach im guessing). Maybe I'm reading it wrong but this bit comes across like there was so much put to them but they determined there was no point in assessing everything over it as could pick apart items which were more undisputable rather than those open to interpretation as there looks like there was enough breech in these to hit that 19m they needed to show they had crossed the line. i'm not far in tho reading so maybe something else shows its different to my assumption later in the document, but would explain why your all getting much higher numbers than they have done them for, because that's all they needed to prove to punish them for this (and maybe politically leave a few cans closed

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/67490620 Premier League: Newcastle can sign players on loan from PIF-owned Saudi clubs after vote / Tougher rules relating to sponsorship deals between 'associated parties' also failed to get the necessary support, with seven clubs voting against the amendment. They were understood to be the same clubs that opposed the ban on loans, with the exception of Burnley. And in a further sign of a split between its clubs, league chiefs were also unable to get them to approve a £900m so-called 'New Deal' financial settlement with the English Football League, despite hopes a package could be announced. Insiders insisted there was "positive momentum" behind talks, but no vote took place after a continuing impasse over new cost control measures. The Premier League has been under mounting pressure to agree improved level of support for the football pyramid. A report by the Culture, Media and Sport (CMS) Select Committee in June said if no funding plan is reached soon, the government should accelerate setting up an independent football regulator "to impose a deal". Panel that docked Everton points will decide compensation claims The same independent panel that docked Everton 10 points for breaching Premier League financial rules will decide on any financial compensation claims from rival clubs. Leeds and Leicester - who were relegated to the Championship last season - along with Burnley - who were relegated in 2022 before returning - are weighing up whether to press ahead with a claim against the Toffees. Had the 10-point deduction been applied in 2021-22, Burnley would have stayed up, as would Leicester last season if it had counted then. Leeds would have finished a place higher, but would still have gone down. It has been reported Everton could potentially face claims for tens of millions of pounds. The clubs have 28 days from the date of the ruling to decide. If they do, barrister David Phillips KC, High Court judge His Honour Alan Greenwood, and chartered accountant Nick Igoe (former West Ham finance director), would hear their arguments. In last week's ruling, Phillips KC referenced applications for financial compensation from a number of clubs, saying he was "satisfied" that they had "potential claims". Everton have 14 days from the ruling to lodge an appeal.

anyone know how they come to the figure they were only 19m in breach of ffp when they lost circa triple the allowance at one point, sounds like a way of not getting into all the covid stuff (with everyone else) but still punishing them for breaching anyways.

is there anything where you can read about their case in a bit of detail to see what come out in the wash

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/roman-abramovich-made-secret-7m-payment-to-eden-hazards-agent-wpvz3xz3f anyone able to unblock this or copy and paste for me? here's another article (not blocked) https://www.givemesport.com/chelsea-facing-possible-points-deduction-over-investigation-into-secret-payments/ one reason I think everton may get somewhat of a hand slap if they can blame it all on covid as its probs the one situation they want to give a pass because if they don't it opens up huge cans of worms, along with all the costs that come with it. Its a once in a lifetime situation, i think the waters are muddied enough to probs just get a fine with a stellar legal team, if they went into this breach consulting sports legal teams to try and find as much grey area as they could before they breached it (which you would assume you would do surely if you had their money and half a brain :laugh:) not that I think that is fair, but do think covid is a get out clause for a lot of things these days, just be glad when it drops off the map for ffp. I really think covid losses should of been capped at a global figure for all clubs, make it fair, I hope they have something in place for if the situation comes up again where the league sets the allowed losses for any force majeure circumstances and applies it to all clubs in the league.

about the same time they also loaned them 3 players too, article describes it as chelsea doing swindon a solid, :laugh: no shit they did them a solid :laugh: https://weaintgotnohistory.sbnation.com/chelsea-fc-transfer-rumours-news/2017/1/11/14238938/swindon-town-chelsea-loan-transfer-colkett-dabo-feruz

https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2023-11-15/roman-abramovichs-hidden-football-deals-during-chelseas-time-at-the-top lots of dirt here, not sure why its pasted with black background sorry :laugh: Abramovich’s hidden football deals during Chelsea’s time at the top Offshore deals with key figures were not recorded in Chelsea’s accounts, despite potentially benefiting the club

not sure how they are setup around the board, I might be remembering wrong, but I'm sure i've heard a few things on price of football podcast that there is a bit of a power struggle with the share holdings at norwich, so may be a reason why they are not getting people put money into the club as much if its a situation that the long standing shareholders dont want to give away equity and more control for the minority shareholders coughing up money in their place (which if they didnt match they would most likely have to pay him back or convert it to equity for him).

yeah if them sort of deals happened to get around the loans they would just be subject to a different valuation and there is no doubt in my mind that if the saudi club paid a big fee for the player that would be the value they would seek epically if the transfer was fresh in the first season, maybe every year they would reduce it but that idea of a proposed buy back of £1 wouldn't help the PL club trying to gain the system, the fee they paid would be re-valued and then they get £1 back when the buy back is activated. that would put them at a full loss on the books. any situation you imagine for a way to gain the system has to end in the PL club having a positive impact on their FFP, compared to signing the player. a simple way to avoid this is to have FIFA come out and it a rule that no clubs owned by the same entities are allowed to interact with each other professionally in the form of trades or meeting in competitive competitions.

there is an easy way to value it for me 1) what's the total max cost of payments to the player over the full length of the contract at the club that owns them 2) what is the full cost of payments to agents and the selling clubs for the full deal pro-rata what both of these figures are over the length of the contract to get your monthly/seasonally rate , then pro-rata the rate you come up for the period on loan, that way a club outside of FFP cannot absorb the cost for a club that is inside a FFP region then it would need at least another club to wash the player for them to do it and gain from it. which could also be investigated and revalued if it was in a short time period of signing the player, eg the same transfer window. take away the potential for gain and it will make it more complicated for them to gain the system, by letting a club under FFP borrow a player at a reduced/bargain cost.

bet their is savings on the wages tho too.

thankfully if they don't make the call its all boils down to what will be put on a extraordinary situation that covid 19 was really interesting how that wild card is going to stand up, seems to be a bit of a free pass for many

some of the stuff he has put out in that interview is batshit crazy, what he expect to happen that one of the fans is actually a millionaire and going to respond by buying him out the club? or have fans lend a club where the owner has said he will not put any more money into it, on the hope of keeping their club and making interest on it, yet if he wont put any money into the club there is no doubt the cashflow dries up and your unsecured loan sharp becomes worthless :laugh: he can't be such an idiot he would rather not fund the club and have administration take it out his hands to make him get less from a sale than if he funded it and sold it if someone comes in who can make a deal with him. there's no scenario in saying that where you get any respect from the fans or helps his situation at all.

Chansiri is having a wip arround if anyone wants to donate so he dont have to pay anything https://www.thestar.co.uk/sport/football/sheffield-wednesday/sheffield-wednesday-dejphon-chansiri-fans-hmrc-wages-4391378 Sheffield Wednesday owner Dejphon Chansiri: Fans must ‘save club’ with £2m for HMRC and wages Sheffield Wednesday owner Dejphon Chansiri has asked supporters who ‘call themselves owners’ to come up with £2m within the next few days to save the club from a multi-window transfer embargo - and admitted players and club staff might not be paid this month amid major cash flow issues.

god bless amortisation :laugh: the clubs that went down wont even get close to 300m, thats just what they are probs asking for you, like the league asking for 12 points, that's their top end, obviously will be contested and brought down appeals process can take a long time because its a legal issue not a sporting issue as it would be challenged in court. if they carry on as they have this season I think they will finish above a 12 point penalty. Dyche will grind enough results I think to keep their head above water, the teams below them are just significantly weaker and I think only one of them out the 4 would probs get them out that rut with a change of management. It's probs the perfect season for them to be docked 12 points. man citys 115 counts actually sound a lot easier to defend than evertons, everton only have covid to rely on, but the evidence on citys claims is lacking, I've seen a few videos where people with a legal mind have gone through it all and alot of it looks like fluff, the obv have broken ffp but think they have covered their tracks enough legally to just get a slap on the wrist, not enough of the claims are backed with good evidence. people look at the uefa case and think it was time barred but that was only one small part of the case and most of it was not sufficiently evidenced and the fine was for not co-operating. the premier league has a uber high burden of proof in this case. here is a good legal summary on how hard some of these charges the premier league has made are going to be to evidence and prove and most have been tried and failed by uefa, a lot based on the number of auditors and other bodies that have previously approved all of these facts in the cases. and unless the deception is proven there is a 6 year statue of limitations which has clearly passed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nuz2z2m1Vzk then you also have to factor in the governments role in this, they rely on the UAE for their special relationship with them that makes our country lots of money and no doubt a call will of been made to them to sort it out for them as well. the league is essentially accusing them of full on fraud and deception which you know they wont let slide. this also increases the chances of their being a slap on the wrist fine, probs for the agent fees and manager off the book payments, which really are just next to nothing offences in the grand scheme of things. then factor in another goverment element, if they did fake revenue do the goverment owe them millions in overpaid tax :laugh: the whole thing also is going to done at the request of the premier league behind closed doors, that sounds to me they are not confident or do not want what they are putting forward viewed by anyone. I don't doubt city have had plenty of early day shenanigans with ffp like many other clubs and gotten away with it, but this whole situation to me just reeks of the premier league trying to get leverage with the goverment against getting a regulator established to control them. The timing was indicator of it and also them wanting to keep it all private tells me that its probs has a lot of frivolous parts to the case. Epically with it failing for Uefa where the proof required was much less. After all like I said its one of our countries golden gooses this relationship we have with them, and the whole thing seems setup for a similar out come as the city case where they will just pay it off and maybe they may not be as regulated as they may have been. both sides in both cases have option to taking it to high court and the court of appeal afterwards as well, this is why the appeals process will take a long time, they can't rush appeals like that otherwise that may likely be used in follow up appeals so everything needs to be correct

I'm guessing its going to fully fully negoatied as everton do have the leverage I think to appeal and drag it out several years. so would expect things if they get settled without appeals to turn out to be a fine and the points to come down or have a good chunk of them to change to suspended. part of me thinks that they would have to be stupid to think they could just breach and blame covid without taking strong legal advice to confirm if it would stand up or not. covid's been used as a massive get out clause for all sorts of failings in business in and out of football, so for me I think that is one thing that cannot be underestimated even tho we all know its a cop out/fiddle, but they may be fortunate that covid gets them out of it. I think 12 points is fair for sure, think even 6 has potential to take them down if they don't sort out their performances on the pitch on the season the dock is placed. I do wonder how it will go if they get docked 12 points and appeal, as the articles are making out the points being docked would be this season (which I imagine is what they are asking for not the reality), I wonder how appeal would work to remove that - assuming the appeals last as long as others (which have been years previously) would the points be suspended until after the appeals.

https://metro.co.uk/2023/10/25/everton-face-12-point-deduction-as-premier-league-demand-severe-punishment-19718928/ everton 12 points down possibly or thats what the league is asking for as the top end of the punishment

he still probs better than the current owners tho , saying that most people are :laugh:

he's just been on talk sport, every reading fan response was out frying pan into the fire, and he seemed to dodge questions about lawsuits (although he said there was 8 cases, he won 7 and is on the front foot on the last one) and dodgy business dealings, he was all talk and sounded like he was gonna mostly borrow the money than use his own