Zedie wrote:Its sad that its come to this to be honest.
As for Hothead, man has been patting himself on the back for f***ing days thinking he had any sort of point on the amount Kronke/Arsenal could put in per year. So for a few points for him and his superior intellect to explain:
Article 61 - Notion of Acceptable Deviation
3 - For licensees assessed on the current monitoring period, contributions from equity participants and/or related parties (as specified in Annex X E) are taken into consideration when determining the acceptable deviation if they have occurred and been recognised: a) in the audited financial statements for one of the reporting periods T, T-1 or T2; and/or b) in the accounting records up until the deadline for submission of the breakeven information for the reporting period T.
Article 61 - Notion of Acceptable Deviation
4 - If contributions occurring until the deadline for submission of the break-even information for the reporting period T are recognised in a club’s reporting period T+1 and have been taken into consideration to determine the acceptable deviation in respect of the current monitoring period, then for later monitoring periods the contributions will be considered as having been recognised in reporting period T.
As an example, the projected monitoring period assessed in the licence season 2018/19 covers the reporting periods ending in 2019 (reporting period T+1), 2018 (reporting period T) and 2017 (reporting period T-1).
If you use the time periods as described below, an equity partner etc. is able to invest 30m private funds in year 1 (T-1), cover those funds via income like player sales, wage cuts, sponsorship, prize funds etc. as long as you can cover the outlay ie make 30m by the end of that period. You can repeat for year 2 and year 3 if following that pattern.
In order for Hotheads philosophy of 30m in 3 years to work, it would mean Arsenal don't make any player sales, don't lower wages through sales/loans/releases, don't add sponsors like Addidas or Visit Rwanda in that 3 year period. Zedie destroyed apparently smh.
Finally
Article 57 - Scope of Application and exemption
5 - Under certain circumstances, as further illustrated in Appendix XII, a licensee can apply to enter into a voluntary agreement with the UEFA Club Financial Control Body for the fulfilment of the break-even requirement.
A voluntary agreement allows a club to reach an additional expenditure plan agreement with UEFA. This is something Kronke has never requested.
Ive made this point previously, but it remains as one of the great unanswered questions from the Finance Four of GW.
Hothead is genuinely convinced these players can be coached out of their weaknesses rather than admit we need money to replace these types. What do you see when you watch those players get skinned, turned, out jumped, out muscled, out run by the likes of Brighton?
Youre in this thread claiming we dont need to spend and the financial crisis thread wringing your hands and you want to talk about reading comprehension lol. Id love to hear some training regimes from you and Hothead that can explain to everyone how these players can be coached to match the rest of the top 6's options.
Zedie, a lot of bluster in your post, time for me to take you to school - AGAIN !
First things first - You claimed my BBC article link was from 2014, I suspected it wasn't because when BBC Sport write articles they tend to - but not always - omit the year if the article was written in the present year. They always display the year if the article is from a previous calendar year. Go and look at the article now, it is showing March 2019. So I did not get the date wrong at all. And in any case and like I stated, the date is irrelevant, the content of the article is what matters.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/29361839Secondly, you have misinterpreted the UEFA FFP regulations AGAIN and based your 10,000 thesis on the WRONG FACTS
https://www.uefa.com/community/news/newsid=2064391.htmlThis explanation of UEFA's FFP rules comes DIRECTLY from UEFA:
3) Are clubs no longer allowed to have losses?
To be exact, clubs can spend up to €5million more than they earn per assessment period (three years). However it can exceed this level to a certain limit, if it is entirely covered by a direct contribution/payment from the club owner(s) or a related party. This prevents the build-up of unsustainable debt.
The limits are:
• €45m for assessment periods 2013/14 and 2014/15
• €30m for assessment periods 2015/16, 2016/17 and 2017/18
In order to promote investment in stadiums, training facilities, youth development and women’s football (from 2015), all such costs are excluded from the break-even calculation.
So, to recap, an assessment period is three years, not one. An owner can put in a direct contribution of up to €30m for that assessment period.
Without putting any money into the club and taking into account wage increases (because in reality wages go up - they DON'T go down), sponsorship deals and player sales/trading, Arsenal Football Club PLC's (not Arsenal Holdings Ltd) profits post tax as filed at Companies House for the past few years have been:
Arsenal ---- (Liverpool comparison - Liverpool Football Club and Athletic Grounds Limited, Companies House accounts)
2018 - £83.8m ( £106m)
2017 - £58.9m ( £38.9m)
2016 - £24.4m ( -£21.4m (yes, a loss))
2015 - £52.8m ( £58.7m)
2014 - £48.3m ( £413k (yes - £413,000))
2013 - £13.2m ( -£50m)
2012 - £59.5m ( -£45m)
Now, according to Zedie, Kroenke should be putting in €30m because the figure can be covered by player sales, a drop in wages and sponsorship deals THE NEXT YEAR. Look at Liverpool's accounts, in 7 years they had 3 loss making years. Bear in mind, the accounts for both clubs already include sponsorship and player sales. If Kroenke put in €30m per season where is this additional €30m going to come from, to cover his input ? As you can see by Liverpool's performance, their figures are wildly up and down. You can see why they have been investigated by UEFA.
According to Swiss Ramble in the last 10 years Liverpool have had £257m of owner cash input AND £48m of external loans. They have been extremely lucky to be able to have had Sterling, Coutinho and Suarez to sell to help balance the books - otherwise they would not have been able to spend anywhere near what they have.
Next lets talk about dropping wages. In the real world that doesn't happen, wages go up. Fine, we get £18m back per year by getting Ozil off the books, but he needs to be replaced. Any decent creative midfielder will cost us £100-150k per week. That £5.2m-£7.8m per season. a top level player will cost minimum £200k pw (£10.4m) If we want decent players we have to pay the wages, in reality our wage bill won't drop much after Ozil leaves the club because players are on the going rate. So cutting the wage bill is like meh to offsetting the €30m per season investment being asked for. You claim wage drop through sales/loans etc, are we not going to replace those players then ??? Will we trim our squad to 18 players ? Good plan Batman.