I’m trying to wrap my head around why owners of football clubs aren’t allowed to invest as much of their own money as they want, and I just can’t figure it out.
If we take Newcastle as an extreme example, despite being the wealthiest club in the world, they’re hamstrung by PSR because their revenue doesn’t allow them to spend whatever they want on transfers etc.
Surely if the owner decided to “give" them £300m of their personal funds, any transfer expenditure could be offset against this? The same - to a lesser extent - could be said for us and INEOS. And in fact INEOS have just given us money to invest in the club, some of which has gone to paying off a large portion of our revolving credit facility. That won’t sit on our books as a debt to be repaid to INEOS.
I understand it’s to stop another Chelsea/Manchester City scenario, where Chelsea especially made massive losses every year and won everything, but if the owners gives them money to offset against transfer spend, it wouldn’t be a loss?
The current rules are anti-competitive and stops a Brighton or a Brentford having a rags to riches story beyond what they’ve already achieved.
The current rules actively prevent multi-billionaires coming in for much smaller clubs and trying to make them champions. It’s not a level playing field. They basically allowed City and Chelsea to do it and then shut the door on everyone else.
As I said, surely if an owner gave the club money, rather than making it a loan that would sit on the books as a debt to be repaid, it wouldn’t count as a loss?
So many businesses in other industries raise money through investment, rounds of fund raising etc, to buy assets for their business but you’re not allowed to do it in football. I’m surprised someone hasn’t taken UEFA/individual leagues to court for being anti-competitive.
PSR and owner investment
posted 2 weeks, 2 days ago
comment by Glazers Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by The Mainoo Man (U23147)
posted 13 minutes ago
Owners are allowed to invest a certain amount.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
£90m over a three year period I think it is that owners are allowed to top the funds up with. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.
Football finances need to massively change anyway. Players going for 100-150m is absolute stupidity and will never be a good thing. Players also earning £400-500k a week is also absolutely ridiculous and needs to stop. Not sure how that happens though now the genie is out of the lamp.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
£90m top up of very modest club revenues over a 3 season period while United earn $800m dollars in a single year in global revenues. That’s not reasonable.
posted 2 weeks, 2 days ago
comment by Glazers Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by The Mainoo Man (U23147)
posted 13 minutes ago
Owners are allowed to invest a certain amount.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
£90m over a three year period I think it is that owners are allowed to top the funds up with. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.
Football finances need to massively change anyway. Players going for 100-150m is absolute stupidity and will never be a good thing. Players also earning £400-500k a week is also absolutely ridiculous and needs to stop. Not sure how that happens though now the genie is out of the lamp.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think it's more than that, but maybe not.
Re wages and fees, it would only take some of the major clubs to agree to reduce fees and wages for new signings within 5 years (length of current player contracts)
Player A is wanted by Real, City and Bayern and so on. They each refuse to pay more than £50m and £200k per week. The selling clubs have no option but to accept eventually. Same with the player.
posted 2 weeks, 2 days ago
comment by 98 Problems (and promotion ain’t one) (U12353)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Glazers Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by The Mainoo Man (U23147)
posted 13 minutes ago
Owners are allowed to invest a certain amount.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
£90m over a three year period I think it is that owners are allowed to top the funds up with. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.
Football finances need to massively change anyway. Players going for 100-150m is absolute stupidity and will never be a good thing. Players also earning £400-500k a week is also absolutely ridiculous and needs to stop. Not sure how that happens though now the genie is out of the lamp.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
£90m top up of very modest club revenues over a 3 season period while United earn $800m dollars in a single year in global revenues. That’s not reasonable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You say that like that money just fell off a tree. United have spent decades building the club and brand. It didn't happen overnight. If that can be undone by one middle eastern Prince buying a Tinpot football club then the game is done for anyway. What incentive is that for teams? Just be crap and hope for a oil state to buy them?
If you were in the fizzy drinks industry could you compete with Coke? If you wanted to start making your own sports shoes could you compete with Nike and Adidas? Of course not. That's life sunshine.
This middle Eastern money at PSG and City has been good for PSG and City ONLY. It's not been a good thing for the rest of football at all and won't be looked back on fondly at all.
posted 2 weeks, 2 days ago
comment by Glazers Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 40 minutes ago
comment by 98 Problems (and promotion ain’t one) (U12353)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Glazers Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by The Mainoo Man (U23147)
posted 13 minutes ago
Owners are allowed to invest a certain amount.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
£90m over a three year period I think it is that owners are allowed to top the funds up with. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.
Football finances need to massively change anyway. Players going for 100-150m is absolute stupidity and will never be a good thing. Players also earning £400-500k a week is also absolutely ridiculous and needs to stop. Not sure how that happens though now the genie is out of the lamp.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
£90m top up of very modest club revenues over a 3 season period while United earn $800m dollars in a single year in global revenues. That’s not reasonable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You say that like that money just fell off a tree. United have spent decades building the club and brand. It didn't happen overnight. If that can be undone by one middle eastern Prince buying a Tinpot football club then the game is done for anyway. What incentive is that for teams? Just be crap and hope for a oil state to buy them?
If you were in the fizzy drinks industry could you compete with Coke? If you wanted to start making your own sports shoes could you compete with Nike and Adidas? Of course not. That's life sunshine.
This middle Eastern money at PSG and City has been good for PSG and City ONLY. It's not been a good thing for the rest of football at all and won't be looked back on fondly at all.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What are you saying has been undone though as you’re arguing against your own point a bit here? If you want to remove the super rich from the game then you have to remove the incentives in the first place, and PSG and City aren’t comparables in that, they have completely different motivations.
The issue with a Mansour is that there’s that much wealth in the game now, he can come in, invest 2 billion and within 15 years be sat on an asset worth double that initial investment. That’s also why you get the flip of it with people like the Glazers who can just sit on an initial investment and reap all the benefits of the asset growth without having to put any more into themselves.
It’s always been about attracting rich owners and investment. The difference nowadays is the amount of wealth in the game and the disparity of it means it both attracts the super wealthy in the first place more and also clubs are actually more reliant on it.
Brighton are a very good example of that. Theyre seen rightly as a well run club doing things the right way. That right way has had to involve an owner putting in 500m of his own money though and them selling assets continuously to now just maintain their status quo.
posted 2 weeks, 2 days ago
comment by Glazers Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 1 hour, 44 minutes ago
comment by 98 Problems (and promotion ain’t one) (U12353)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Glazers Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by The Mainoo Man (U23147)
posted 13 minutes ago
Owners are allowed to invest a certain amount.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
£90m over a three year period I think it is that owners are allowed to top the funds up with. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.
Football finances need to massively change anyway. Players going for 100-150m is absolute stupidity and will never be a good thing. Players also earning £400-500k a week is also absolutely ridiculous and needs to stop. Not sure how that happens though now the genie is out of the lamp.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
£90m top up of very modest club revenues over a 3 season period while United earn $800m dollars in a single year in global revenues. That’s not reasonable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You say that like that money just fell off a tree. United have spent decades building the club and brand. It didn't happen overnight. If that can be undone by one middle eastern Prince buying a Tinpot football club then the game is done for anyway. What incentive is that for teams? Just be crap and hope for a oil state to buy them?
If you were in the fizzy drinks industry could you compete with Coke? If you wanted to start making your own sports shoes could you compete with Nike and Adidas? Of course not. That's life sunshine.
This middle Eastern money at PSG and City has been good for PSG and City ONLY. It's not been a good thing for the rest of football at all and won't be looked back on fondly at all.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You’ve been able to spend decades building your club and brand on the back of a legacy position that dates back to the 1950s and even before that. Its that legacy position of being historically one of the biggest clubs in world football that allows you to outspend the rest on a consistent basis and keeps the gap at such a disproportionate level
You rightly reference a soft drinks start up being able to compete with the likes of Coke, but what your missing is that this is a sporting competition - not an episode of The Apprentice. The only way your model is taking football is into some kind of revised European breakaway league for the biggest clubs.
Now I totally accept that a Saudi prince shouldn’t be able to buy his way to success overnight BUT the current stipulations actually prevent any small club from ever being able to break into the stranglehold the top 4 have historically had on a consistent basis. That should change and I believe if we have a better mechanism then it will make competitive football better
posted 2 weeks, 2 days ago
comment by Glazers Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 4 hours, 2 minutes ago
comment by 98 Problems (and promotion ain’t one) (U12353)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Glazers Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by The Mainoo Man (U23147)
posted 13 minutes ago
Owners are allowed to invest a certain amount.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
£90m over a three year period I think it is that owners are allowed to top the funds up with. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.
Football finances need to massively change anyway. Players going for 100-150m is absolute stupidity and will never be a good thing. Players also earning £400-500k a week is also absolutely ridiculous and needs to stop. Not sure how that happens though now the genie is out of the lamp.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
£90m top up of very modest club revenues over a 3 season period while United earn $800m dollars in a single year in global revenues. That’s not reasonable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You say that like that money just fell off a tree. United have spent decades building the club and brand. It didn't happen overnight. If that can be undone by one middle eastern Prince buying a Tinpot football club then the game is done for anyway. What incentive is that for teams? Just be crap and hope for a oil state to buy them?
If you were in the fizzy drinks industry could you compete with Coke? If you wanted to start making your own sports shoes could you compete with Nike and Adidas? Of course not. That's life sunshine.
This middle Eastern money at PSG and City has been good for PSG and City ONLY. It's not been a good thing for the rest of football at all and won't be looked back on fondly at all.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn’t realise City had only bought players from the Middle East.
Sheikh Grealish?
posted 2 weeks, 2 days ago
Khail Walker?
posted 2 weeks, 2 days ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 2 minutes ago
Khail Walker?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He's leaned into the Middle Eastern many wives and children philosophy
posted 2 weeks, 2 days ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 24 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 2 minutes ago
Khail Walker?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He's leaned into the Middle Eastern many wives and children philosophy
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If he’d signed for United he could have given them a good hiding too
posted 2 weeks, 2 days ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 24 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 2 minutes ago
Khail Walker?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He's leaned into the Middle Eastern many wives and children philosophy
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If he’d signed for United he could have given them a good hiding too
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Okys he could keep it in the family