[Football] Premier League club has striking off order from Registrar of Companies. Who could it be?

[LlcoolJ]

No. But some clubs seem to have been pretty clever about it.

 

[Exile]

Are UEFA, FA etc just allowing teams to submit any figure for their sponsorship deals (ie, company linked to owners pay well over the odds for a sponsorship deal)?

If so that's just dumb, and means the whole thing is pointless.

In theory, no. All sponsorship deals are supposed to be subject to scrutiny, to check they are 'commercially realistic'.

In practice, you have Everton's training ground being sponsored, for multiple millions, by a company called USM - owned by the Arsenal owner - who are getting literally ZERO commercial benefit from the deal. Literally nobody knows who they are, or what they make or sell. A financial arrangement, pure and simple.

 

[the wanderbus]

You'd have to be a clueless goon to now lend them money for the new stand...

I'm sure somebody could have a dig around down the back of the sofa.

 

[KZNSeagull]

Reading the link coolJ posted, it's not about the percentage of tv money, but the total and the increase compared to last year.

The short term cost control measures (increasing wages by 7m) only come into effect once the total spend of wages is over 67m (the percentage of tv money). Hence the top decision box in that diagram in the article.

 

[lawros left foot]

I was told at the start of last season that the reason they only signed Sako, apart from the 2 loans, was the finances were very tight.
There was also the rumour about their spending in the January window, that they agreed a 4 million fee for the keeper from Getafe, then when they had to pay a lot more for the Scandinavian forward ( Sorell??) than they budgeted for, 9 mill if memory serves, they went back to Getafe and tried to knock a couple of million of the agreed price for the keeper. Getafe told them to get to ****, so, they signed him on a pre- contract to join them now.

 

[Se20]

I was told at the start of last season that the reason they only signed Sako, apart from the 2 loans, was the finances were very tight.
There was also the rumour about their spending in the January window, that they agreed a 4 million fee for the keeper from Getafe, then when they had to pay a lot more for the Scandinavian forward ( Sorell??) than they budgeted for, 9 mill if memory serves, they went back to Getafe and tried to knock a couple of million of the agreed price for the keeper. Getafe told them to get to ****, so, they signed him on a pre- contract to join them now.

If you don’t mind, I’ll tell you the true story.
Getafe’s no 1 Guaita, entered the last 6 months of his contract, and after we agreed a fee with their presidente,we entered negotiations with Guaita.
Then their presidente spat his dummy out and demanded an extra few million, so we signed him on a pre contract, thus Getafe ended up with no money, and still losing him in 6 months.
Rumours of Athletico Madrid wanting to hijack the deal are abound,with a £15 mill fee rumoured ( paid to us)
Hopefully he joins us on July 1st.
Don’t let the facts get in the way of some Palace bashing.

 

[Stat Brother]

Don’t let the facts get in the way of some Palace bashing.

Would you care to provide us with some facts about the issue raised by this thread?

 

[Triggaaar]

In theory, no. All sponsorship deals are supposed to be subject to scrutiny, to check they are 'commercially realistic'.

Sounds good.

In practice, you have Everton's training ground being sponsored, for multiple millions, by a company called USM - owned by the Arsenal owner - who are getting literally ZERO commercial benefit from the deal. Literally nobody knows who they are, or what they make or sell. A financial arrangement, pure and simple.

So some owners of clubs are getting stung for breaking FFP, others (like Sir Tony Bloom) have to work hard to stay within the rules, and meanwhile there are clubs that just blatantly cheat and nothing is done about it - why aren't the owners of all clubs that are affected not complaining and getting something done?

 

[Triggaaar]

The short term cost control measures (increasing wages by 7m) only come into effect once the total spend of wages is over 67m

That's what I said, 'the total'.

(the percentage of tv money)

Are you saying that the £67m isn't a fixed number, but a specific % of tv money that changes each year?

 

[Se20]

Would you care to provide us with some facts about the issue raised by this thread?

Funnily enough, I have no idea about what’s goes on behind the scenes at Palace, and presumably most of you lot don’t either.
El Pres is your man for this sort of thing

 

[Triggaaar]

Don’t let the facts get in the way of some Palace bashing.

Funnily enough, I have no idea about what’s goes on behind the scenes at Palace

 

[Stat Brother]

Funnily enough, I have no idea about what’s goes on behind the scenes at Palace, and presumably most of you lot do.
El Pres is your man for this sort of thing

But that's the problem.
El Pres has repeatedly been discredited by most of our pet palace trolls, but when asked to provide a different narrative the likes of [MENTION=33732]Swillis[/MENTION] go silent.

If you could see my bank account 2 days after pay day, you'll know I could believe any financial explanation, no matter how far fetched.
There must be some 'pro palace' murmurings you can pass on?

 

[dadams2k11]

Apparently, they are doing it so no one knows how much they got to spend in the transfer market.

These account are for 2016 so don't know how other clubs could know how much they have to spend by CPFC2010 filling them on time*.

Tbf it's only a few that say that but it still delusional.

*Like the rest of the other 19 clubs managed to do.

 

[KZNSeagull]

That's what I said, 'the total'.
Are you saying that the £67m isn't a fixed number, but a specific % of tv money that changes each year?

I believe it is a percentage of the TV deal, yes, that changes with each deal. Whether that percentage is fixed or not, I am not sure

 

[LowKarate]

I see that they could face a fine of £375 for submitting their accounts 1-3 months late.

That’ll be the final nail in the coffin. There’s no way they’ve got enough money to cover that.

 

[m20gull]

I agree. I seem to remember that their wage bill in their last set of published accounts was very near the mark in terms of %age of tv money. I may be wrong though.

Just checked. 2015/16 wages in CPFC2010 accounts was £71m. If I have read correctly that means they could increase by £7m plus any increase in commercial income.

 

[bWize]

Doesn't surprise me in the slightest. They do have a long history of being up to no good when it comes to paying the bill.

 

[APalace Fan]

We started our season about 2 months late too, and that all ended tickety-boo.
Don't panic lads.

 

[Postman Pat]

Some bad news for CPFC..... Plan B required....Unless....

 

[crabface]

Great article from The Guardian about 16-17 club Premier League accounts:

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2018/jun/06/premier-league-finances-club-guide-2016-17

This is the breakdown of Palace's:

Accounts not filed

Turnover: Unknown
Wages: Unknown
Profit before tax: Unknown

"The 2016-17 accounts for CPFC 2010, the Palace holding company, were due by law at Companies House by 31 March this year and have still not been filed. That is extremely unusual; it is difficult to recall any club in recent years filing accounts from a Premier League season substantially late. Palace representatives say the delay is not due to any financial problems from a year in which two managers, Alan Pardew and Sam Allardyce, departed. However, no explanation has been provided."