The Great Big FFP Debate

BaZ87 said:
Was that in response to my question? The panel found that the PL should have handed over information earlier than they did (the PL did provide City with the database) but that their calculations for determining the deals were not FMV were not unreasonable.

Clubs having access to a database of commercial deals won't enable them to secure commercial deals above FMV - deals will still need to be FMV, clubs will just know what others are getting.
Click to expand...
The way i have read it is, with clubs like city and Newcastle was they could submit a deal for sponsorship and the PL could knock it back (or the PL could just sit on it and not give a response like they did with city) saying it was rejected because it was above FMV not knowing how much above FMV it was, now clubs will know exactly how much a FMV deal will be.
 
woppy101 said:
The way i have read it is, with clubs like city and Newcastle was they could submit a deal for sponsorship and the PL could knock it back (or the PL could just sit on it and not give a response like they did with city) saying it was rejected because it was above FMV not knowing how much above FMV it was, now clubs will know exactly how much a FMV deal will be.
Click to expand...
I've not read the full judgement nor do I know the exact timetable of how City's deals were rejected (they were given the database at some point however and didn't resubmit their deals) however the top and bottom of it is that deals need to be of FMV. That's all that ultimately matters.

FMV is what Newcastle (or whoever) should be able to get from non related parties. Whether Newcastle are told what FMV is for any given deal doesn't really matter in my opinion because they still can't agree a deal for more than what they could achieve from a non Saudi company.
 
BaZ87 said:
Was that in response to my question? The panel found that the PL should have handed over information earlier than they did (the PL did provide City with the database) but that their calculations for determining the deals were not FMV were not unreasonable.

Clubs having access to a database of commercial deals won't enable them to secure commercial deals above FMV - deals will still need to be FMV, clubs will just know what others are getting.
Click to expand...
No just catching up on a few things but having access to data the PL will have a harder time rejecting deals and easier to prove FMV by bench marking other clubs.

Now I’m not claiming 200million shirt sponsorship etc.

Also looks like a lot of extra rules they rushed in to make it even harder to pass deals was unlawful.
 
Bigpig said:
....but having access to data the PL will have a harder time rejecting deals and easier to prove FMV by bench marking other clubs....
Click to expand...
I'm not sure how it makes things harder for the PL. If a deal is above FMV they can reject it. I really fail to see any meaningful advantage to clubs knowing what others are getting in relation to FMV. What is FMV for Newcastle shouldn't be a surprise to Newcastle. They don't need to be told what Villa are getting to know what, give or take, they can legitimately put through as FMV.

Ultimately what Newcastle (or whoever) can successfully argue is FMV is the same value that they should be able to secure on the open market so I don't really care if Newcastle sign a deal with Saudi Telecom for £10m instead of EE. You can argue it makes Newcastle's work easier but ultimately you're not going to benefit from greater commercial deals through this change.
 
BaZ87 said:
I'm not sure how it makes things harder for the PL. If a deal is above FMV they can reject it. I really fail to see any meaningful advantage to clubs knowing what others are getting in relation to FMV. What is FMV for Newcastle shouldn't be a surprise to Newcastle. They don't need to be told what Villa are getting to know what, give or take, they can legitimately put through as FMV.

Ultimately what Newcastle (or whoever) can successfully argue is FMV is the same value that they should be able to secure on the open market so I don't really care if Newcastle sign a deal with Saudi Telecom for £10m instead of EE. You can argue it makes Newcastle's work easier but ultimately you're not going to benefit for greater commercial deals through this change.
Click to expand...
Where does it state that the club must have a matching non owned sponsorship of the same value? If I’m not mistaken that was one of the rules that the PL tried to rush in. As far as going the clubs needed at least 3 matching deals. Which they now have to backpedal or the vote failed. Can’t remember if it passed.

Again we will only really know more once the rules are amended and put in place. Which shouldn’t be long.

It’s nice to have things out in the public. We were referenced a lot in the paperwork and seem to be the catalyst for the panic among some of the clubs.
 
Bigpig said:
Where does it state that the club must have a matching non owned sponsorship of the same value? If I’m not mistaken that was one of the rules that the PL tried to rush in. As far as going the clubs needed at least 3 matching deals. Which they now have to backpedal or the vote failed. Can’t remember if it passed.

Again we will only really know more once the rules are amended and put in place. Which shouldn’t be long.

It’s nice to have things out in the public. We were referenced a lot in the paperwork and seem to be the catalyst for the panic among some of the clubs.
Click to expand...
I didn't state that they must have matching deals of the same value. I stated that what is fair market value for a club is the amount that they can be reasonably expected to earn from a non related party. This amount, give or take a % or 2, isn't going to come as a massive shock to clubs. Newcastle seeing a spreadsheet that shows what Villa earn from their x sponsor isn't going to be some great advantage to them. It might save them some time but that's about it. What is FMV for Newcastle isn't going to change because they know what Villa earn.

What is FMV for Newcastle is going to be the same regardless of the amendment to the rules and that figure is the same as what they should be able to get from a non Saudi deal.
 
BaZ87 said:
I didn't state that they must have matching deals of the same value. I stated that what is fair market value for a club is the amount that they can be reasonably expected to earn from a non related party. This amount, give or take a % or 2, isn't going to come as a massive shock to clubs. Newcastle seeing a spreadsheet that shows what Villa earn from their x sponsor isn't going to be some great advantage to them. It might save them some time but that's about it. What is FMV for Newcastle isn't going to change because they know what Villa earn.

What is FMV for Newcastle is going to be the same regardless of the amendment to the rules and that figure is the same as what they should be able to get from a non Saudi deal.
Click to expand...
Again going back to my previous post the onus now lies with PL to prove a deal is not FMV not for the club to prove it is. That’s pretty big and they can’t sit and bury their heads in the sand which is their go to tactic.
 
Bigpig said:
Again going back to my previous post the onus now lies with PL to prove a deal is not FMV not for the club to prove it is. That’s pretty big and they can’t sit and bury their heads in the sand which is their go to tactic.
Click to expand...

Surely the PL can just change the rules to what they want going forward since it is their league?
 
Bigpig said:
Again going back to my previous post the onus now lies with PL to prove a deal is not FMV not for the club to prove it is. That’s pretty big and they can’t sit and bury their heads in the sand which is their go to tactic.
Click to expand...
And the panel found that the PL's methodology for determining what is FMV (in relation to the 2 rejected City deals) was "not unreasonable". They're going to have to go through the process again because of procedural errors (the timing of which info was provided to City etc) however again, the way in which the PL determined FMV of City's deals was supported.

I'd suggest reading the twitter thread I posted above because it seems you and most people believing this to be a big win for City are misinformed or simply clutching at straws.
 
@BaZ87 and they going to have to pay City some pretty large damages.

And again that’s just one person giving his opinion. We won’t know the true effect until the rules is rewritten or if City/PL launch an appeal if they can.( haven’t seen that anywhere)

Masters to get the sack?
adam cool dude said:
Surely the PL can just change the rules to what they want going forward since it is their league?
Click to expand...
Fun starts now. They are going to have to rewrite the rules around FMV. In its current state it’s unlawful. How they do that no freaking clue. Do they still need a majority? The clubs can’t agree on anything atm. What happens in the mean time?
 
Last edited:
Bigpig said:
@BaZ87 and they going to have to pay City some pretty large damages.

And again that’s just one person giving his opinion. We won’t know the true effect until the rules is rewritten or if City/PL launch an appeal if they can.( haven’t seen that anywhere)

Masters to get the sack?
Click to expand...
Are they going to have to pay City damages? This verdict only sets aside the original PL decision on two City deals, with these deals now having to go through the FMV process again (albeit with slightly amended rules(assuming City attempt to put these deals through of course)). If the PL reject them again under the amended rules then City will have lost nothing and therefore have no damages to claim but even if they are approved, what is City's loss? Let's say City's new deals were worth an extra £20m per year and this situation has delayed them by 6 months, they can therefore claim losses of £10m (plus maybe some minor costs). Not exactly what I'd call pretty large for a League with revenues of billions each year.

And you're right, this is just one person's opinion but it's a qualified opinion. Even for the unqualified amongst us, only reading snippets of the report, it seems fairly clear that City won on very little. In fact their biggest win and the biggest change to the rules that we're likely to see (interest free owner loans being exempt from APT rules), City voted in favour of that rule! If City's biggest win is overturning something they supported then I'd say it's a fairly big loss overall.
 
@BaZ87
Does this enable City to get a long term deal passed before they get relegated due to the 115 charges?

Again time will tell.

As regards with Newcastle one of the PL tactics have been delay and reject. That is no longer an option for the PL. The club has went public before with the frustrations and lack of clarity or time scales from the PL.

If the new changes result in Newcastle finding it easier and quicker to get deals past resulting in a slighter higher figure and more income enabling us to finally replace Miggy.

Then I don’t give a **** what you say. I’m claiming that as a victory!!
 
I've no idea how any commercial deals are treated until any amendments are made. I've seen one journo report that the PL say that ATP/FMV rules remain in place - whether that means the current ones or they roll back the recent amendments to the older rules, I don't know. Any deals will still be subject to FMV though, it appears. As for their charges and relegation, I'm not sure I understand the relevance. City's commercial revenue (whether inflated or not) won't be able to save them from a fire sale in the event they are relegated.

I've no idea what you're talking about re Newcastle. Are you suggesting the PL have used delaying tactics regarding Newcastle signing commercial deals? If so, do you have any proof of this?
 
BaZ87 said:
I'd suggest reading the twitter thread I posted above because it seems you and most people believing this to be a big win for City are misinformed or simply clutching at straws.
Click to expand...
The scale of City's victory really hinges on the club's objectives. If the goal was to dismantle APT (which I strongly doubt), then it's fair to say the victory is somewhat limited, albeit still significant. However, if the aim was to realign the rules (which seems more likely), then the result must be seen as a major success.

What is beyond debate, though, is the extent of the Premier League’s defeat. Having a public authority essentially rule that its regulations were unlawful, as was their enforcement, is monumental. Equally significant are the findings of procedural irregularities and unfairness.
That should be the real story, yet we are seeing people contort themselves to claim that neither side truly won—when one side clearly lost.

Following the Leicester debacle, this only reinforces the notion that the Premier League is nowhere near capable of overseeing a multi-billion-pound industry of such strategic and commercial significance to the UK imo.
There is of course the whole timing of the 115 charges as well, just days (iirc) before the white paper was about to be released by the government on independent regulators being involved in the premier league, the charge sheet was full of errors and looked rushed and published just to try and get it out before the gov did, a brash attempt at trying to prove the league can run everything fine themselves, "look we just found loads of things with City so we obvs are capable boss".

The entire thing is a mess from the premier league in all honesty.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom