Gritt23
New member
Yep, that's how I read it.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Project PLR: We must be ready says Paul Barber
- Thread starter clippedgull
- Start date
Yep, that's how I read it.
But surely you agree that whether we sign a striker in the next week and whether we have a few defeats or wins in a row or even if we have a season of mid table mediocrity is immaterial in terms of the debate of whether we have to get this club ready in the long term for the Premiership. I find it highly strange we haven't managed to secure a striker over the last few months but can also see that this isn't linked in any way to the long term plan to build the new training ground, get rid of the dead wood, cut losses, building a hotel and new car park and generally get us ready for the premiership whether this happens in the next 2 years or 5 years.
And for what it's worth, in 30 years of watching the Albion this is without doubt the best time to be a fan - and yes, that's even when we lose.
You gave assurances for a future owner's policy
Struggling to see how you were able or had the authority to do so ?
Brighton Breezy
New member
Generally don't like business/corporate speak and, I suspect, there are not actually ANY members of staff at the Albion adjusting their daily routines to fit in the thinking "PLR". Hopefully they do the best job they can without the need for "What would Barber do?" type slogans.
Nothing against the ambition behind it though and can't see what harm the PLR slogan does. Just don't see the point of it and suspect it is perhaps the sort of David Brent terminology which would - if it HAS to be used - be better not being quoted to a newspaper.
Nothing against the ambition behind it though and can't see what harm the PLR slogan does. Just don't see the point of it and suspect it is perhaps the sort of David Brent terminology which would - if it HAS to be used - be better not being quoted to a newspaper.
Twinkle Toes
Growing old disgracefully
You gave assurances for a future owner's policy
Struggling to see how you were able or had the authority to do so ?
Oh yes, the old future owners policy chestnut. It's a shame many of us didn't know what the then Board member & future owner had in store for us at the time - as some of us plebs would've been able to make an informed decision about lying on behalf of the club.
Creaky
Well-known member
If TB transferred ownership of one of his currently successful projects that's say currently making £20 million a year profit to BHAFC in return for yet more equity in the club he would still own both the club and the transferred business. The bottom line of BHAFC's P&L would however have improved to the tune of £20 million.
Not very different to TB investing capital in the club to allow them to develop additional businesses outside of football in order to produce an increase in revenue and profit for the club - nor that much different to transferring the profits of one venture to the club by way of sponsorship.
Both appear to be outside the spirit of the FFP rules which are intended to regulate the footballing activities of clubs not how profitably they can run hotels or car parks.
Agreed. When Baker said there was going to be a hotel we all got angry and said he was deliberately scaremongering and nothing of the sort was planned. Now it turns out he was right. Not that I give a toss tbh, (he had to be right about something) and if the club want to build a hotel and think it will raise money then fine, I'll support it. But like you I can't get excited at the thought; it's only a stage up from enthusing about something like new tills in the shop.
No sensible businessman will gift a money making venture to a football club, even if he owns the club. There's a difference between throwing money at a club and throwing a money making venture at the club. That 20m benefit goes to the club. Tony no longer owns the business that was making him money. That business is owned by the club. He may be the chairman, of the club, but the club is going to use that 20m to buy better players, to subsidise attendance, training camps abroad, etc. Tony doesn't see any of it.
Even so, it is significantly different in one way:
Shirt Sponsorship or gifting a successful business to a club is something that is only available to one club.
Investing in a new business venture or paying market value for an up and running business is a path any club can take.
Brighton are investing in a new business, paying market value. Not being gifted a business.
Hillian1
( . ) ( . )
Me too.
Creaky
Well-known member
But they are being gifted the means to invest in the "new business"
You suggest that it would be OK to invest in an existing business without breaking the spirit of the FFP rules as long as the market price were paid - this is a path "any club could take".
Fine, TB lends the club £x million, interest free, to buy the existing business, (or start a new one). The profits from that venture now appear on the clubs bottom line. TB converts the loan in stages into equity - How is that any different from what happened regarding the building of the Amex and the training ground?
Likewise what is the practical difference between the above scenario compared to just transferring ownership of a business, (existing or new), directly to the club in return for additional equity? The only difference I can see is that there is a short period of time when a liability for the interest free loan appears on the balance sheet - the P&L benefits exactly the same, whichever way it is done, and it is the P&L which determines compliance with FFP not the balance sheet.
It just doesn't seem right to be able to include non-footballing revenue streams when determining compliance with FFP.
Creaky
Well-known member
Interesting list I came across on www.financialfairplay.co.uk
A list of potential loop holes that the accountants responsible for auditing FFP submissions on behalf od UEFA
Pure Related Party transaction e.g. PSG sponsor
Mixed Related Party transaction e.g. Etihad deal
Declared Related Party transaction e.g. City sale of ‘intellectual property and know how’
Non football-related income e.g. Real’s Dubai complex, Trabzonspor’s Hydro-Electric power plant
Changing accounting duration e.g. Liverpool
Transactions & costs outside club accounts
Player write-down in season prior to FFP e.g. Man City
Cancelled provision e.g. Ancelotti at Chelsea
Exclusions e.g. Youth/Community spend
Account auditing issues
State Subsidies
Membership fees
Tax differences
Presumably the Football League's accountants will be aware of these 'loop holes' and will be looking out for them so will they consider income from an hotel as 'Non football-related income'
A list of potential loop holes that the accountants responsible for auditing FFP submissions on behalf od UEFA
Pure Related Party transaction e.g. PSG sponsor
Mixed Related Party transaction e.g. Etihad deal
Declared Related Party transaction e.g. City sale of ‘intellectual property and know how’
Non football-related income e.g. Real’s Dubai complex, Trabzonspor’s Hydro-Electric power plant
Changing accounting duration e.g. Liverpool
Transactions & costs outside club accounts
Player write-down in season prior to FFP e.g. Man City
Cancelled provision e.g. Ancelotti at Chelsea
Exclusions e.g. Youth/Community spend
Account auditing issues
State Subsidies
Membership fees
Tax differences
Presumably the Football League's accountants will be aware of these 'loop holes' and will be looking out for them so will they consider income from an hotel as 'Non football-related income'
Diego Napier
Well-known member
- Mar 27, 2010
- 4,416
Nope, it's rooted firmly in your genes; there were many optimists involved as well.
Twinkle Toes
Growing old disgracefully
Wahay! I see you've taken to playing about with semantics these days, eh Diego? I thought you were better than that, quite honestly: but it appears your worm has turned. Hey ho.
glasfryn
cleaning up cat sick
PLR
pocket loads revenue
pocket loads revenue