FFP

[Drummond]

Why couldn't we borrow £10bn and pay it back over 100 years at a very low interest rate from, say, an Egyptian bank, with low repayments, and stay within FFP rules?

[villa_cads]

How do we account the revenue for Villa Park given it's not owned by the club? Presume the club has a lease for the stadium, with matchday/commercial costs/revenue included in the club P&L and any P&S calcs... but do we/could we have a preferential lease whereby the costs are footed by the freeholder and therefore not through the club books? I recall West Ham has a very cushy deal, but don't know enough to say if that is infrastructure costs under P&S anyway.

[ChicagoLion]

Having huge debts, going bust, its all linked.

A club that has nearly £1B debt should not be allowed to have a 400% spending advantage over clubs with no debt. Especially if the club with no debt have wealthy owners.

If ManU have debt that is serviceable, what is the difference between them & their serviceable debt due to large profits, or a club having wealthy owners who can finance potential purchases?

If, the purpose of PSR is about stopping clubs spending beyond their means, going into debt, or going bust?

Lots of successful businesses have debt, the majority of the ManU debt was incurred prior to FFP.
I agree that the way the authorities have bought in FFP is poor but the current scheme is based on profitability which is a P&L measurement not debt which is Balance Sheet item.

The difference is that debt is interest bearing which impacts the P&L whereas investment isn’t but is still a Balance Sheet item.

Because Man U have huge revenue they can service large amounts if debt, the will always  have an advantage over most clubs because this, the debt situation is thankfully holding them back.

[pablo_picasso]

Having huge debts, going bust, its all linked.

A club that has nearly £1B debt should not be allowed to have a 400% spending advantage over clubs with no debt. Especially if the club with no debt have wealthy owners.

If ManU have debt that is serviceable, what is the difference between them & their serviceable debt due to large profits, or a club having wealthy owners who can finance potential purchases?

If, the purpose of PSR is about stopping clubs spending beyond their means, going into debt, or going bust?

Lots of successful businesses have debt, the majority of the ManU debt was incurred prior to FFP.

I agree that the way the authorities have bought in FFP is poor but the current scheme is based on profitability which is a P&L measurement not debt which is Balance Sheet item.

The difference is that debt is interest bearing which impacts the P&L whereas investment isn’t but is still a Balance Sheet item.

Because Man U have huge revenue they can service large amounts if debt, the will always  have an advantage over most clubs because this, the debt situation is thankfully holding them back.

But we are talking about football & its ridiculous "profit & sustainability rules". There are plenty of things that happen in big business that isn't allowed in football.

Spending one's own money, being one.

Im not saying that clubs should go all out & splash cash willy nilly. There has to be some form on cap on spending, otherwise we will see more Chelsea & ManC's. But the way we go about it at the moment is wrong.

Im not concerned if ManU's debt was incurred before FFP/PSR.

There are plenty of clubs who are suffering for not having the cash to buy titles & success, therefore huge sponsors & profits, etc, over the past twenty years or so. But we are stuck with the rules that make it doubly difficult to compete, while others utilise the ill gotten gained profits to be able have huge sponsors & profits that give them a huge advantage over the rest of us.

And then there are clubs with huge debts like ManU. I see no reason why debts cant be factored into PSR. Even if it's a points deduction for every £100M of debt. The Premier League can be pretty creative when it suits their own purpose. So they could do 'something'. Anything.

If the debt is not an issue for ManU due to their profits, then they should be able to cover that debt pretty quickly over the course of a few years. And that should reduce their income, their profits & that should lower their spending ability. If it is an issue to pay it back over a few years, then isn't that a huge problem & part of the reason that PSR was created?

We agree that FFP/PSR has been shit, I just think that it's completely ridiculous that a club £1B in debt can spend 400% more than a club with no debt & some of the wealthiest owners in the world.

[pauliewalnuts]

Debt is only a problem if you can not service it.

I know this, because it's what i tell my Mrs every time she moans about my credit card balance.

[john e]

Debt is only a problem if you can not service it.

I know this, because it's what i tell my Mrs every time she moans about my credit card balance.

What’s the use of gold when you’re 80 years old

[Beard82]

Having huge debts, going bust, its all linked.

A club that has nearly £1B debt should not be allowed to have a 400% spending advantage over clubs with no debt. Especially if the club with no debt have wealthy owners.

If ManU have debt that is serviceable, what is the difference between them & their serviceable debt due to large profits, or a club having wealthy owners who can finance potential purchases?

If, the purpose of PSR is about stopping clubs spending beyond their means, going into debt, or going bust?

Lots of successful businesses have debt, the majority of the ManU debt was incurred prior to FFP.

I agree that the way the authorities have bought in FFP is poor but the current scheme is based on profitability which is a P&L measurement not debt which is Balance Sheet item.

The difference is that debt is interest bearing which impacts the P&L whereas investment isn’t but is still a Balance Sheet item.

Because Man U have huge revenue they can service large amounts if debt, the will always  have an advantage over most clubs because this, the debt situation is thankfully holding them back.

But we are talking about football & its ridiculous "profit & sustainability rules". There are plenty of things that happen in big business that isn't allowed in football.

Spending one's own money, being one.

Im not saying that clubs should go all out & splash cash willy nilly. There has to be some form on cap on spending, otherwise we will see more Chelsea & ManC's. But the way we go about it at the moment is wrong.

Im not concerned if ManU's debt was incurred before FFP/PSR.

There are plenty of clubs who are suffering for not having the cash to buy titles & success, therefore huge sponsors & profits, etc, over the past twenty years or so. But we are stuck with the rules that make it doubly difficult to compete, while others utilise the ill gotten gained profits to be able have huge sponsors & profits that give them a huge advantage over the rest of us.

And then there are clubs with huge debts like ManU. I see no reason why debts cant be factored into PSR. Even if it's a points deduction for every £100M of debt. The Premier League can be pretty creative when it suits their own purpose. So they could do 'something'. Anything.

If the debt is not an issue for ManU due to their profits, then they should be able to cover that debt pretty quickly over the course of a few years. And that should reduce their income, their profits & that should lower their spending ability. If it is an issue to pay it back over a few years, then isn't that a huge problem & part of the reason that PSR was created?

We agree that FFP/PSR has been shit, I just think that it's completely ridiculous that a club £1B in debt can spend 400% more than a club with no debt & some of the wealthiest owners in the world.

I agree with this - Debt risks a clubs future.  Its a gamble.  In a lot of cases low risk - but ultimately you'll never run into issues if you don't own anyone anything.

[sid1964]

Is the plan for increasing our stadium capacity by having an area of safe standing by taking all the seats out of the lower North Stand?

[andyh]

Is the plan for increasing our stadium capacity by having an area of safe standing by taking all the seats out of the lower North Stand?

I don’t think that’s how safe standing works

[Rudy Can't Fail]

Man Utd might be 1b in debt but the club is worth 5b + so it’s hardly negative equity

They also had a bumper year commercially breaking all records. The gloryhunting twats complain about the Glaziers but the club are  financially strong just not great appointing managers and buying half decent players.

[aj2k77]

Man Utd might be 1b in debt but the club is worth 5b + so it’s hardly negative equity

They also had a bumper year commercially breaking all records. The gloryhunting twats complain about the Glaziers but the club are  financially strong just not great appointing managers and buying half decent players.

So just not good at the actual football bit of football.

[pablo_picasso]

Man Utd might be 1b in debt but the club is worth 5b + so it’s hardly negative equity

They also had a bumper year commercially breaking all records. The gloryhunting twats complain about the Glaziers but the club are  financially strong just not great appointing managers and buying half decent players.

But again, serviceable or not, (which it is at the moment, but things can change pretty quickly in both business & footballing worlds), is having huge debts but being allowed to spend 400% more than a club with no debt & much wealthier owners fair? 

[Sexual Ealing]

Man Utd might be 1b in debt but the club is worth 5b + so it’s hardly negative equity

They also had a bumper year commercially breaking all records. The gloryhunting twats complain about the Glaziers but the club are  financially strong just not great appointing managers and buying half decent players.

But again, serviceable or not, (which it is at the moment, but things can change pretty quickly in both business & footballing worlds), is having huge debts but being allowed to spend 400% more than a club with no debt & much wealthier owners fair? 

Why do you imagine that anyone wants the system to be fair? They don't claim it's fair, they don't seek fairness. The last thing anyone wants is for anything to be fair.

[Nev]

Man Utd might be 1b in debt but the club is worth 5b + so it’s hardly negative equity

They also had a bumper year commercially breaking all records. The gloryhunting twats complain about the Glaziers but the club are  financially strong just not great appointing managers and buying half decent players.

But again, serviceable or not, (which it is at the moment, but things can change pretty quickly in both business & footballing worlds), is having huge debts but being allowed to spend 400% more than a club with no debt & much wealthier owners fair? 

Why do you imagine that anyone wants the system to be fair? They don't claim it's fair, they don't seek fairness. The last thing anyone wants is for anything to be fair.

Absolutley, the erosion of the game being a meritocracy at the highest level has been a policy now for quite some time.

[pablo_picasso]

That doesn't mean that we have to like it or accept it...