In our dreams!

[The Kraken]

I don't really see how that is the case?

 

As long as the academy is producing, and we continue to be in a decent financial state and a Premiership team, it's only a win win situation.

 

As I said above, if we can keep the players - they can help us push on. If not, Cortese has shown how good he is at getting a deal that suits us. Let's remember we got more for Oxo, a 17 year old with 2/3's of a L1 season behind him, than Everton got from City (the club that spent around £30m+ on Jo and Santa Cruz) for an England International that had 80+ Prem appearances and Europa league experience.

 

That's the point though, isn't it? People are making a massive deal about whether we can keep the players we develop; as if that's the be all and end all. Blimey, you could probably take our current squad and add to it all of the academy graduates we've created in the last 10 years; Bale, Walcott, Dyer, Oxo, Baird etc. Put them all in our squad and we'd still not have a squad capable of Cl qualification, possibly not even to get into the Europa spots. So hanging on to the youngsters is not the final solution; if anything, generating funds from potential stars and spending it elsewhere is what is serving Everton well, and has served us well in the past.

 

If we're going to progress then I think the academy is key; just not perhaps in the way that the club entirely hope it to be. A conveyor belt of young talent that plays for the first team for 2 or 3 years then moves on for a hefty fee is a much more realistic platform for Saints success than a first team made up of 50% academy grads.

[This Charming Man]

It's great to have ambitions & a dream.

 

Greece had the same feelings when they won Euro 2000 (I think)

 

Neil Armstrong had a dream to land on the moon, Edmund Hillary had a dream to climb Everest, Martin Luther King had a dream, blah blah blah.

[The9]

Things have changed. The FFP rules include provisions to prevent trumped up sponsorship deals and the income for all Prem clubs will shift significantly next season with the new TV deal - there will still be a difference in CL teams and global brands to others but there's almost certainly a window of opportunity to acquire players on higher wages before the market settles down and the extra funds (inevitably) get hoovered up by player wages.

 

A shrewd club would be throwing money at it as soon as their Prem status is secure for 2013/14 because they'd save money or get better players more cheaply in the long run. That's still subject to being able to entice them in the first place of course.

[Sour Mash]

Things have changed. The FFP rules include provisions to prevent trumped up sponsorship deals and the income for all Prem clubs will shift significantly next season with the new TV deal - there will still be a difference in CL teams and global brands to others but there's almost certainly a window of opportunity to acquire players on higher wages before the market settles down and the extra funds (inevitably) get hoovered up by player wages.

 

A shrewd club would be throwing money at it as soon as their Prem status is secure for 2013/14 because they'd save money or get better players more cheaply in the long run. That's still subject to being able to entice them in the first place of course.

I know there is supposed to be a rule to stop trumped up sponsorship, but I reckon they'll be able to find a way around it all one way or another. Regardless, the FFP does little to help club's our size compete with those at the very, very top of the game.

[The9]

FWIW I think a team with Bale, Walcott, Oxlade-Chamberlain, Shaw, etc would go a long way to being in the top half. Add a few others who are still Prem quality and some of the current lot like Clyne and we wouldn't be a million miles away.

[The9]

I know there is supposed to be a rule to stop trumped up sponsorship, but I reckon they'll be able to find a way around it all one way or another. Regardless, the FFP does little to help club's our size compete with those at the very, very top of the game.

 

Difficult to know at this stage, I'm just pointing out that contrary to Adrian's point, things are not the same.

[The Kraken]

Things have changed. The FFP rules include provisions to prevent trumped up sponsorship deals and the income for all Prem clubs will shift significantly next season with the new TV deal - there will still be a difference in CL teams and global brands to others but there's almost certainly a window of opportunity to acquire players on higher wages before the market settles down and the extra funds (inevitably) get hoovered up by player wages.

 

A shrewd club would be throwing money at it as soon as their Prem status is secure for 2013/14 because they'd save money or get better players more cheaply in the long run. That's still subject to being able to entice them in the first place of course.

 

And clubs are continually finding ways round them, hence PSG's super deal with the Qataris that is due to rise to 200M euros a year over its course. UEFA have tried to implement rules to stamp this out, but with such sums at stake its almost impossible to arbitrarily stamp it out. And look at this quote from PSG's chairman about their deal:

 

"We'll follow the rules," el-Khelaifi said. "Mr. Platini (UEFA's president) said we'll need to be creative. We have a few ideas."

 

I don't think UEFA have any true intention to stamp out such investment in the game; although I commend their initiative to only allow clubs to spend whatever they earn. They just are a bit toothless when it comes to determining how a club earns that money.

[KelvinsRightGlove]

Things have changed. The FFP rules include provisions to prevent trumped up sponsorship deals and the income for all Prem clubs will shift significantly next season with the new TV deal - there will still be a difference in CL teams and global brands to others but there's almost certainly a window of opportunity to acquire players on higher wages before the market settles down and the extra funds (inevitably) get hoovered up by player wages.

 

A shrewd club would be throwing money at it as soon as their Prem status is secure for 2013/14 because they'd save money or get better players more cheaply in the long run. That's still subject to being able to entice them in the first place of course.

 

I'm intrigued to see how the FFP rules are received. I really struggle to see clubs like United, City, Chelsea, Inter, Real etc being refused entry into the CL for running at big losses.

 

It will only harm the competition, and probably lead to a breakaway eventually anyway.

[Thedelldays]

I know there is supposed to be a rule to stop trumped up sponsorship, but I reckon they'll be able to find a way around it all one way or another. Regardless, the FFP does little to help club's our size compete with those at the very, very top of the game.

they were talking about this FFP rule on 5live the other week....lets say it stops sponsorships etc.....how can it stop say, someone at man city...getting in a top player and well within the FFP but separately, the owners buys said player a £1m property....etc

 

how can you stop that..?

[KelvinsRightGlove]

they were talking about this FFP rule on 5live the other week....lets say it stops sponsorships etc.....how can it stop say, someone at man city...getting in a top player and well within the FFP but separately, the owners buys said player a £1m property....etc

 

how can you stop that..?

 

Exactly. I think the ideas are well meaning, but I think in reality they are going to struggle to have much impact at all.

[hypochondriac]

they were talking about this FFP rule on 5live the other week....lets say it stops sponsorships etc.....how can it stop say, someone at man city...getting in a top player and well within the FFP but separately, the owners buys said player a £1m property....etc

 

how can you stop that..?

 

Cant fifa or whoever look at it and then decide to impose sanctions. If they don't like it then they can't play?

[Thedelldays]

Cant fifa or whoever look at it and then decide to impose sanctions. If they don't like it then they can't play?

how can they get involved in property dealings away from football.....when the owner dips into his own pocket to buy someone else a 'gift'

[ART]

Our goal has to be 5 good years in the Premier before we even consider Champions League. One only has to look at clubs who enter too quickly to know it stretches inexperienced clubs to the limit. Even our last entry saw us struggle thereafter and get relegation.

[Sour Mash]

Exactly. I think the ideas are well meaning, but I think in reality they are going to struggle to have much impact at all.

I agree with the idea of limiting the amount of debt that a club can have loaded onto it, but I don't see why there should be a limit to how much a company or individual can invest into a club. It actually makes the game more interesting and competitive, gives sides the size of Blackburn and Wigan to compete in the Prem or some of the Eastern European sides to compete with the traditional big clubs in European competition.

[tajjuk]

Who are Everton's best prospects from the academy if England international Jack Rodwell is not one of them? There must be a few of them if Rodwell is not one of them. Interested to know.

 

I'm sure they did feel they got a good deal; £12M is a lot of money and allowed them to reinvest elsewhere in the team. Just as £15M was a lot of money for us for Chamberlain, which also allowed us to reinvest elsewhere in the team and make the squad stronger than without him.

 

But then I guess the rules are different for us than to other teams that lose their academy prospects.

 

It wasa good deal because he's not worth that much, he wasn't even close to a key player to them, whereas Bale, Theo and the Ox have been key first teamers, but our league status and financial situation forced those sales.

 

Everton sold Rodwell because they got a good price for a player who despite showing a lot of promise hadn't kicked on and is quite injury prone, like I said poor example.

 

Better one might be Rooney. There aren't many examples though of upper mid table clubs losing their top home grown players to bigger clubs, at least I can't think of many. Not sure many premiership clubs are producing top home grown talent. West ham a while back losing the likes of Lampard and Ferdinand maybe, but they were always flirting with relegation, Rooney from Everton but they got a very hefty fee for him.

 

Looking through the current England Squad and recent call ups, maybe Smalling? Henderson? again a pretty good fee, would be like someone offering £20 million for Lallana.

 

Not many established premiership clubs seem to loose their top young stars unless they choose to because of generoud fees, or are forced to by relegation or financial troubles.

[Sour Mash]

It wasa good deal because he's not worth that much, he wasn't even close to a key player to them, whereas Bale, Theo and the Ox have been key first teamers, but our league status and financial situation forced those sales.

 

Everton sold Rodwell because they got a good price for a player who despite showing a lot of promise hadn't kicked on and is quite injury prone, like I said poor example.

 

Better one might be Rooney. There aren't many examples though of upper mid table clubs losing their top home grown players to bigger clubs, at least I can't think of many. Not sure many premiership clubs are producing top home grown talent. West ham a while back losing the likes of Lampard and Ferdinand maybe, but they were always flirting with relegation, Rooney from Everton but they got a very hefty fee for him.

 

Looking through the current England Squad and recent call ups, maybe Smalling? Henderson? again a pretty good fee, would be like someone offering £20 million for Lallana.

 

Not many established premiership clubs seem to loose their top young stars unless they choose to because of generoud fees, or are forced to by relegation or financial troubles.

Villa had to sell all their decent young players. Swansea lost Allen and Sinclair. Newcastle lost Carroll.

[Wes Tender]

As valuable a contribution as ever.

 

*points out forum rule of "if you haven't got any contribution to make to the thread other than sarcastic drivel, probably best not to make one at all"*

 

Was Adrian being sarcastic, or making a valid point? He is entirely correct in his observation that this has all been debated ad-nauseum before.

 

Off the top of my head, there is also a forum rule stating that duplicating existing threads should be avoided.

 

In any event, you obviously don't see the irony of you accusing him of making a sarcastic post in view of a comment of yours earlier in the thread. Pots and kettles spring to mind.

[KelvinsRightGlove]

Villa had to sell all their decent young players. Swansea lost Allen and Sinclair. Newcastle lost Carroll.

 

They got £35m for the bloke, it would have been stupid to turn that down.

[Golden Balls]

It does make me laugh that the few prolific posters on here jump on the one or two who say "if Everton can do it..." and respond like that's our whole fan base. Ignoring that everybody else is agreeing that its not possible.

 

Anyway, just to throw another FFP loophole out there. What stops the club putting a signed piece of Saints memorabilia up for sale in the club shop for £20,000,000 and someone, like an owner (who by rights could remain anonymous) buying it? Still counts as money "earned" by the club as its coming through that revenue stream.

 

Or how about putting a bottle of wine on sale in hospitality for £10,000,000 and a wealthy individual (maybe the owners, or their friends after a gift from the owners) goes and buys it. That £10m would go down on the books as revenue from hospitality.

 

You get where I'm coming from. FFP will never work.

[Saint86]

You can dream all you want, you can discuss dreams all you want.

 

All I know is that in another life we would have this as our attack....

 

Striker - Walcott/lambert

AMC - Bale/Gaston/lallana

RW - Oxlade

LW - Bale/lallana

 

For a spend of 12m.

 

People said theo was the last one, then they said bale was.. but out popped the ox, now we have jwp and shaw, with a whole host of other talented youngsters and I don't just mean hoskins and reeves.

 

The longer we keep these players, and they have all come top European players, the better our team will become. In the premier we will keep them for longer, and the ones we sell we will sell for more. If gives us more time and money to build a better team and retain more youngsters. That is the clubs ambition, you'd be a fool to not consider the potential outcomes with our track record of producing talent. When top british clubs bow down and praise our youth setup as something to learn from we must be doing something right. And we clearly have money behind us and a good player investment strategy. Enjoy the ride, and see where it takes us. But don't dismiss europe as never more that a dream. We can definitely expect to aim for europa league as an ambition for the next 5 years as a minimum. We may never reach it ofc. But honestly, a premier club with our setup and momentum that doesn't at least target that has no place in the league at all. FFS look at stoke and newcastle in recent years. And don't pll the old chestnut about newcastle having a 50k attendance out the bag, attendance revenues pale in comparison to tv revenues - which are set to increase still further next season. With new ffp we are in a prime position to move forward. We have the best youth setup in england/bar utd and a young squad full of potential. We are going places! Lets just hope that its not the the county ground in the league next season ^_^

[KelvinsRightGlove]

It does make me laugh that the few prolific posters on here jump on the one or two who say "if Everton can do it..." and respond like that's our whole fan base. Ignoring that everybody else is agreeing that its not possible.

 

Anyway, just to throw another FFP loophole out there. What stops the club putting a signed piece of Saints memorabilia up for sale in the club shop for £20,000,000 and someone, like an owner (who by rights could remain anonymous) buying it? Still counts as money "earned" by the club as its coming through that revenue stream.

 

Or how about putting a bottle of wine on sale in hospitality for £10,000,000 and a wealthy individual (maybe the owners, or their friends after a gift from the owners) goes and buys it. That £10m would go down on the books as revenue from hospitality.

 

You get where I'm coming from. FFP will never work.

 

I'm not saying that just because Everton did it we can. I was merely using their model as an example of how the statement that the Leeds way is the only way isn't true.

 

Probably worth noting by means of comparison, other than players Everton have NO ASSESTS. They don't own their stadium, academy, or training ground. There may be a case that financially, we are on better footing than them.

[The Kraken]

Was Adrian being sarcastic, or making a valid point? He is entirely correct in his observation that this has all been debated ad-nauseum before.

 

Off the top of my head, there is also a forum rule stating that duplicating existing threads should be avoided.

 

In any event, you obviously don't see the irony of you accusing him of making a sarcastic post in view of a comment of yours earlier in the thread. Pots and kettles spring to mind.

 

Is there any point to this post?

 

I think you probably need to understand what a duplicate thread is before you start down that path. This is a repeated thread of one that has since dropped into the archives; and is not unlike the various attendance threads that change over time. its not a duplicate one though; that's something entirely different, wherever you're keeping your pots and kettles. The simple rule still applies; if you don't have any constructive to add to a thread, don't add to it.

 

Can't believe I wasted my time pointing that out; that's the mods' job.

[Doctoroncall]

It does make me laugh that the few prolific posters on here jump on the one or two who say "if Everton can do it..." and respond like that's our whole fan base. Ignoring that everybody else is agreeing that its not possible.

 

Anyway, just to throw another FFP loophole out there. What stops the club putting a signed piece of Saints memorabilia up for sale in the club shop for £20,000,000 and someone, like an owner (who by rights could remain anonymous) buying it? Still counts as money "earned" by the club as its coming through that revenue stream.

 

Or how about putting a bottle of wine on sale in hospitality for £10,000,000 and a wealthy individual (maybe the owners, or their friends after a gift from the owners) goes and buys it. That £10m would go down on the books as revenue from hospitality.

 

You get where I'm coming from. FFP will never work.

 

They would be classed as equity investment in UEFA FFP Rules. They have had quite a number of years to develop the rules, with the help of the clubs of course so there will be other ways around it.

[aintforever]

Unlikely but not impossible. Nothing wrong with aiming high.

[The Kraken]

Not many established premiership clubs seem to loose their top young stars unless they choose to because of generoud fees, or are forced to by relegation or financial troubles.

 

Villa had to sell all their decent young players. Swansea lost Allen and Sinclair. Newcastle lost Carroll.

 

Phil Jones from Blackburn; Chris Smalling from Fulham; Jordan Henderson from Sunderland; Jack Rodwell from Everton. The list goes on and on. And its ridiculous to say those transfers were different to Saints in any way; huge sums of money were offered for players that for the most part were integral to the team/squad , and the club accepted the money. It has happened plenty before, it will continue to happen aplenty.

[Sour Mash]

They got £35m for the bloke, it would have been stupid to turn that down.

Just pointing out that even big, well supported, established clubs lose their best young players to bigger clubs.

[The Kraken]

They would be classed as equity investment in UEFA FFP Rules. They have had quite a number of years to develop the rules, with the help of the clubs of course so there will be other ways around it.

 

Tell me; I don't know the rules in this regard.

 

Say Abramovic decides he wants to plough another £200M into Chelsea, but he's maxed out on sponsorship options. Could he "donate" £200M into the club and take it out as share equity (i.e. a redistribution of the shares)??

 

Its a fairly simplistic method, granted; but it also seems to stop the whole notion of clubs spending money they don't have, which is the entire purpose of FPP. I guess the only stipulation would have to be that those shares could not be converted back into debt to provide a financial return.

[tajjuk]

Villa had to sell all their decent young players. Swansea lost Allen and Sinclair. Newcastle lost Carroll.

 

Swansea got £15 million for Allen and personally I don't think he will ever be in the Bale/Walcott class, Newcastle got £35 million for Carroll, a player now on loan as West Ham and has scored 1 in 12, with West Ham unlikely to stump up the £15 million to buy him.

 

Swansea didn't develop Sinclair and signed him for just £500k and then sold him for £7 million, again he's a decent player but as they have shown easily replaceable and not even got a 'token' England cap.

 

As for Villa again were any youth products? Villa stole Barry from Brighton for about £2 million on tribunal and sold him for £12 million, they rejectd £15 million from Liverpool the season before. Downing they bought for about £10 million and sold him for £20 million, a player now close to being released by Liverpool.

 

Point is not many of these are homegrown players and in most cases a stable Premiership club will get an overinflated fee for a rated youngster. At their prices Walcott, the Ox and Bale all look undersold by us, as all would cost far more to buy now, especially Bale who if he leaves Spurs any time soon will cost £40 million plus, from a £5 million purchase.

[Wes Tender]

Is there any point to this post?

 

I think you probably need to understand what a duplicate thread is before you start down that path. This is a repeated thread of one that has since dropped into the archives; and is not unlike the various attendance threads that change over time. its not a duplicate one though; that's something entirely different, wherever you're keeping your pots and kettles. The simple rule still applies; if you don't have any constructive to add to a thread, don't add to it.

 

Can't believe I wasted my time pointing that out; that's the mods' job.

 

Are you a moderator? No, I didn't think so. So excuse me if I take no notice of your opinions as to what constitutes forum rules. You had better complain to the mods that Adrian's point was sarcastic and we'll let them adjudicate, shall we?

 

There is no need to add anything further to this debate, as it has all been covered before, regardless of whether you yourself consider it a duplicate or a repeated thread. In any event, anybody who attempts to express an opinion that us playing in Europe is a possibility is ridiculed as a fantasist, so what's the point? We should just accept the opinions of those who know better than us, but who is going to tell Cortese that he doesn't know what he's doing and is wasting his time with us?

[The Kraken]

Are you a moderator? No, I didn't think so. So excuse me if I take no notice of your opinions as to what constitutes forum rules. You had better complain to the mods that Adrian's point was sarcastic and we'll let them adjudicate, shall we?

 

There is no need to add anything further to this debate, as it has all been covered before, regardless of whether you yourself consider it a duplicate or a repeated thread. In any event, anybody who attempts to express an opinion that us playing in Europe is a possibility is ridiculed as a fantasist, so what's the point? We should just accept the opinions of those who know better than us, but who is going to tell Cortese that he doesn't know what he's doing and is wasting his time with us?

 

There seems to be a fairly healthy debate going on here, Wes. There's certainly some good points from both sides going on; tajjuk makes some reasonable suggestions though I disagree with a fair amount of his point. You seem to have simply sniped from the sides and added nothing.

 

Anyway, I'll let you have the last word about how pointless it all is, and just carry on.

[Sour Mash]

Swansea got £15 million for Allen and personally I don't think he will ever be in the Bale/Walcott class, Newcastle got £35 million for Carroll, a player now on loan as West Ham and has scored 1 in 12, with West Ham unlikely to stump up the £15 million to buy him.

 

Swansea didn't develop Sinclair and signed him for just £500k and then sold him for £7 million, again he's a decent player but as they have shown easily replaceable and not even got a 'token' England cap.

 

As for Villa again were any youth products? Villa stole Barry from Brighton for about £2 million on tribunal and sold him for £12 million, they rejectd £15 million from Liverpool the season before. Downing they bought for about £10 million and sold him for £20 million, a player now close to being released by Liverpool.

 

Point is not many of these are homegrown players and in most cases a stable Premiership club will get an overinflated fee for a rated youngster. At their prices Walcott, the Ox and Bale all look undersold by us, as all would cost far more to buy now, especially Bale who if he leaves Spurs any time soon will cost £40 million plus, from a £5 million purchase.

I think you're missing the point. It doesn't really matter whether they were direct products of the youth team or not. They were young players nurtured and developed by those clubs into top-level Premier League players and then sold onto bigger clubs. It's the way the world works.

[Wes Tender]

You seem to have simply sniped from the sides and added nothing.

 

Anyway, I'll let you have the last word about how pointless it all is, and just carry on.

 

 

Something about man climbing Everest to get to the moon.

 

I wonder who this was, sniping from the sidelines and adding nothing. Was this a sarcastic remark, against forum rules?

 

As I said, anybody who expresses the opinion that it is not impossible is met with this sort of puerile put down.

 

Just as a matter of interest, as you are one who does not believe it will happen, what analogy would you use to illustrate how unlikely it would be?

[The Kraken]

I think you're missing the point. It doesn't really matter whether they were direct products of the youth team or not. They were young players nurtured and developed by those clubs into top-level Premier League players and then sold onto bigger clubs. It's the way the world works.

 

You don't even have to pigeon-hole it to academy prospects. If Ramirez develops as we hope he will then we have the exact same problem that Newcastle face having just lost Demba Ba. That's Newcastle, who were in the Champions League spots at times last year, have played in the Champions League a few times before, and who are in the last 32 of the Europa League.

[The Kraken]

Just as a matter of interest, as you are one who does not believe it will happen, what analogy would you use to illustrate how unlikely it would be?

 

How unlikely what will be?

[dellboypete]

Of course with the CL in it's current format (4 from the prem) it really is a dream.

 

But there have been a few articles recently that UEFA and platini have talked about merging the CL and the Europa league, which would mean that almost half the premier league would qualify.

 

I'm sure that there would be other criteria involved somewhere, but it would give clubs like us a realistic chance.

[The Kraken]

Of course with the CL in it's current format (4 from the prem) it really is a dream.

 

But there have been a few articles recently that UEFA and platini have talked about merging the CL and the Europa league, which would mean that almost half the premier league would qualify.

I'm sure that there would be other criteria involved somewhere, but it would give clubs like us a realistic chance.

 

That was actually retracted somewhat shortly after it was announced.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2012/dec/05/uefa-europa-league-boost-not-scrap

[KelvinsRightGlove]

You don't even have to pigeon-hole it to academy prospects. If Ramirez develops as we hope he will then we have the exact same problem that Newcastle face having just lost Demba Ba. That's Newcastle, who were in the Champions League spots at times last year, have played in the Champions League a few times before, and who are in the last 32 of the Europa League.

 

Is anyone aware of whether Gaston has a release clause?

[Doctoroncall]

Tell me; I don't know the rules in this regard.

 

Say Abramovic decides he wants to plough another £200M into Chelsea, but he's maxed out on sponsorship options. Could he "donate" £200M into the club and take it out as share equity (i.e. a redistribution of the shares)??

 

Its a fairly simplistic method, granted; but it also seems to stop the whole notion of clubs spending money they don't have, which is the entire purpose of FPP. I guess the only stipulation would have to be that those shares could not be converted back into debt to provide a financial return.

 

It seems it's fairly easy to add equity, although limited. This was big change from a few years back when I last looked. There are acceptable limits during the monitoring periods assessed. 45m euros for the next two (starting with 13/14 season) then down to 30m for the next three. After that tbd.

 

Don't forget that the break even point with deviation will include the valuation of players but is complicated by the 'fair value' of players and the like (cost of bottle of wine in the hospitality example).

 

So what they are clamping down on is the related party fair value aspect, eg, the sponsorship deals.

 

 

The interesting (!) bit on equity contributions is from p82:

Contributions from equity participants D. and/or related party(ies)

1. Acceptable deviation can exceed EUR 5 million up to the amounts described inArticle 61(2) in a monitoring period only if such excess is entirely covered bycontributions from equity participants and/or related parties.2. Contributions from equity participants are payments for shares through the sharecapital or share premium reserve accounts. That is, investing in equityinstruments in their capacity as shareholder.3. Contributions from a related party include:a) Capital contributions being a contribution by a related party: that is anunconditional gift made to the reporting entity by a related party whichincrease the reporting entity’s equity without any obligation for repayment orto do anything in consideration for receiving them. For example, a waiver ofinter-company or related party debt constitutes a capital contribution, as itresults in an increase in equity; and/orb) Income transactions from a related party: the amount to be considered as acontribution will be no more than an amount equivalent to the differencebetween the actual income in a reporting period and the fair value of thetransaction(s) in a reporting period as already recognised in the calculation ofthe break-even result (see part B(1)(j)). The monies must have beenreceived by the reporting entity, rather than just some form of promise orcommitment from the related party.4. The following types of transaction are not ‘contributions from equity participantsand/or related parties’:i) Positive movement in net assets/liabilities arising from a revaluation;ii) Creation, or increase in the balance, of other reserves where there is no

contribution from equity participants;

iii) A transaction whereby the reporting entity has a liability in that the entityhas a present obligation to act or perform in a certain way;iv) Contributions from owners in respect of instruments classified as

liabilities.

[The Kraken]

Is anyone aware of whether Gaston has a release clause?

 

One would hope that if he does it is for significantly more than the ludicrous £7M figure that Newcastle received for Ba.

[FloridaMarlin]

Of course there always have been bigger clubs, even in the days before vast television revenues. In the days when clubs had to rely on what they brought in through the turnstiles Man Utd and Liverpool were always bigger clubs than Saints at The Dell.

And yes, we did rely heavily on Marcus's millions to get us out of League One and back to the Prem, and under those circs it might be hypocritical to bemoan about other clubs having a financial advantage.

But there was more opportunity back in the day for the smaller clubs to gatecrash the big boys party.

Under Ted we were able to finish high enough to qualify for Europe, and even when the capacity of The Dell was cut even further we were able to finish runners-up.

That was probably because the difference between the bigger and smaller clubs was not so big as it is now.

We might not have entered every season in the top flight with the hope of winning it, but we always had a reasonable expectation of tweaking the big boys tails more regularly than we do now.

I think that what caused the Big Bang moment was not so much Sky's arrival on the scene, but the Bosman ruling.

It changed the dynamic and while nobody would want to see a return to the days of the Maximum Wage and players being held hostage by clubs retaining their registration, it has created the situation where what earmarks a club for success is not its ability to recruit and develop players and create a winning team by canny coaching, tactics and management but simply the ability to pay the sort of sort of crazy wages players demand.

Yes, there's always been an element of that, and even we managed to sign Kevin Keegan.

My own view is that while the FFP rules are well intended, clubs will always find a loophole.

If Uefa are deadly serious about making it work, they have to be prepared to take on the big boys and close those loopholes.

At which point, they will all bugger off and in a Kerry Packer circus style, form their own show with other top clubs from across Europe (and possibly the world) and backed by even bigger TV revenues, thanks to vast Asian audiences, stick two fingers up to Fifa en route.

It will mean the end of a meaningful World Cup as we know it, but that won't matter to all the Man Utd shirt-wearing hordes in Jakarta, Kuala Lumpur, Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzho.

Blimey, perhaps it's the time of year. Somebody cheer me up!

[KelvinsRightGlove]

One would hope that if he does it is for significantly more than the ludicrous £7M figure that Newcastle received for Ba.

 

I would certainly hope if there is one it puts us in a stronger position than the one Newcastle put themselves in.

[The Kraken]

I would certainly hope if there is one it puts us in a stronger position than the one Newcastle put themselves in.

 

I'm guessing Newcastle were put over a barrel when they signed Ba from West Ham (the Hammers didn't really want to let him go); and perhaps the inclusion of a release clause like that was the only way he'd agree to put pen to paper. Shows the difficulty there can be in attracting top 4 players to a non-top 4 club.

[Thedelldays]

I would certainly hope if there is one it puts us in a stronger position than the one Newcastle put themselves in.

they were discussing this on talksport as to why BA's clause was so low.

reason they were told was that he pretty much failed the medical but they took a punt on him but he was on around £15k a week basic at newcastle (high bonuses etc)...but for that low wage he got the £7m clause insterted

[Zlavik]

So our goal should be to just avoid relegation in PL?

I don't see any problem with having a LONG TERM goal of playing in CL, I actually think all clubs in PL have this goal.

 

The game will change with the new fair financial play rules.

[Sour Mash]

So our goal should be to just avoid relegation in PL?

I don't see any problem with having a LONG TERM goal of playing in CL, I actually think all clubs in PL have this goal.

 

The game will change with the new fair financial play rules.

Where has anyone said we should just avoid relegation?

 

How will the financial fair play rules change anything?

[The Kraken]

they were discussing this on talksport as to why BA's clause was so low.

reason they were told was that he pretty much failed the medical but they took a punt on him but he was on around £15k a week basic at newcastle (high bonuses etc)...but for that low wage he got the £7m clause insterted

 

He failed a medical at Stoke before West Ham signed him so its possible. West Ham had him on a deal related to appearances. That said, they were also reported to be offering him in excess of £55K per week to stay (in whatever guise), so if the £15K basic is true his bonusses must have been astronomical.

[aintforever]

My own view is that while the FFP rules are well intended, clubs will always find a loophole.

If Uefa are deadly serious about making it work, they have to be prepared to take on the big boys and close those loopholes.

 

Shouldn't be hard, the Football League and Premier League don't have a problem with loopholes.

 

They can just make Champions League entry a matter of discretion of the organisers. If a club is obviously flouting the rules they can just say no entry.

[Window Cleaner]

so if the £15K basic is true his bonusses must have been astronomical.

 

maybe last season, this season probably not so much if they depended on results.

 

Failed medicals are becoming more and more common, why on another thread I was explaining about Diamé's heart problems. Clubs must have a hard time insuring them so can't afford to pay mega bucks in transfer fees.

[The Kraken]

Shouldn't be hard, the Football League and Premier League don't have a problem with loopholes.

 

They can just make Champions League entry a matter of discretion of the organisers. If a club is obviously flouting the rules they can just say no entry.

 

They can, but they'll be massively at pains not to. Trying to sell a Champions League TV package is much more attractive (and expensive) with the huge teams in it; there's no financial interest in UEFA banning such clubs from their own tournament, let alone the precedent it might accelerate in them forging their own breakaway league.

[The Kraken]

maybe last season, this season probably not so much if they depended on results.

 

Failed medicals are becoming more and more common, why on another thread I was explaining about Diamé's heart problems. Clubs must have a hard time insuring them so can't afford to pay mega bucks in transfer fees.

 

I was talking about West Ham supposedly offering him £55K a week to stay, which he turned down to go to Newcastle. I doubt he took a drop in pay as he saw Newcastle as a nicer place to live and a career progression.