Finance

[jimtastic56]

2 minutes ago, Ram-Alf said:

I watch Cops Uncensored...Christ on a bike, I know we have our Neanderthals but in the USA the right to bear arms is crazy, The amount of USA citizens that will shoot to kill their police officers beggars belief, Of course the police shoot back and kill them...what do they expect 🤷‍♂️ 

This sounds so interesting, can’t we have a new thread for all those who are captivated by life in the U.S.A. ( not having a dig at anyone) 

[MadAmster]

13 hours ago, eddielewis said:

Just had a read of this it's basically spicing up a passing comment from the probable culture secretary but if they are looking at the 10% levy on Prem deals that will be interesting as that could raise some good capital for the ourselves and fellow Football League clubs. First thoughts are as most transfer deals are paid in instalments would it be stringent enough to be 10% of the entire fee because I see a clear loophole that Prem teams could exploit.

The first year, if it wasn't an immediate 10% on the full transfer value would, indeed see a low "bonus" for the EFL clubs. Year 2 would see it increase as it would then be 10% of 2 years instalments. After 5 years or so it would be equivalent to 10% of one season's total. Short term lowish income from the EFL building up to a decent amount.

... or have I got my sums wrong?

[MadAmster]

On 06/06/2024 at 10:24, jimtastic56 said:

Good point .If Rams are worth £175 mill the same as Watford , David Clowes has made himself a quick £100 million . There should be no problem finding the money for a run at the Prem. 

Not made a penny until any shares are sold and the cash has been received and there doesn't seem to be a plan to issue shares at the moment so he's made nothing and the Club owes Clowes Development £36M according to the most recent annual financial statement.

[Chesterfield_Ram]

On 06/06/2024 at 00:37, Ambitious said:

How on earth can the Premier League prove beyond doubt that the sponsorship deals paid to by City were above 'fair market value' when I suspect they just mirrored the going-rates at other top clubs around the world and possibly other sports.

I know this is not Derby related, but I think the 'fair market value' policy introduced by the premier league is just wrong.

Surely, the value of a sponsorship is what a company is willing to pay for it. What do the PL expect clubs to do. 'thank you for offering £80 million to sponsor our shirt this year. But a fair value would be £50 million, so you can have some money back.'

I'm sure if a team negotiates a bad deal they won't let them bump up the price to a fair value in the accounts to allow them more spending space under ffp, so I don't see why they should punish clubs who negotiate good deals above what they class as fair value.

[Chesterfield_Ram]

On 17/06/2024 at 21:16, eddielewis said:

Just had a read of this it's basically spicing up a passing comment from the probable culture secretary but if they are looking at the 10% levy on Prem deals that will be interesting as that could raise some good capital for the ourselves and fellow Football League clubs. First thoughts are as most transfer deals are paid in instalments would it be stringent enough to be 10% of the entire fee because I see a clear loophole that Prem teams could exploit.

I doubt it will happen, but if there is any sport of loophole I expect PL teams to find it in order to not have to pay as much.

[tinman]

56 minutes ago, Chesterfield_Ram said:

I know this is not Derby related, but I think the 'fair market value' policy introduced by the premier league is just wrong.

Surely, the value of a sponsorship is what a company is willing to pay for it. What do the PL expect clubs to do. 'thank you for offering £80 million to sponsor our shirt this year. But a fair value would be £50 million, so you can have some money back.'

I'm sure if a team negotiates a bad deal they won't let them bump up the price to a fair value in the accounts to allow them more spending space under ffp, so I don't see why they should punish clubs who negotiate good deals above what they class as fair value.

So when the owner of both the sponsor and the club is the same, they can decide what is fair? 🤣

 

[Simmo’s left foot]

The issue is when the owner uses another business he or she also owns to pay inflated sums via sponsorship to inject cash into the football club. Overpaying massively for a corporate entertainment package, or shirt sponsorship for example.

[Gaspode]

4 hours ago, Chesterfield_Ram said:

I know this is not Derby related, but I think the 'fair market value' policy introduced by the premier league is just wrong.

Surely, the value of a sponsorship is what a company is willing to pay for it. What do the PL expect clubs to do. 'thank you for offering £80 million to sponsor our shirt this year. But a fair value would be £50 million, so you can have some money back.'

I'm sure if a team negotiates a bad deal they won't let them bump up the price to a fair value in the accounts to allow them more spending space under ffp, so I don't see why they should punish clubs who negotiate good deals above what they class as fair value.

Isn't that a bit like selling your ground to another of your companies? or selling a player at an inflated price to the Greek club that you also happen to own....

[Chesterfield_Ram]

4 hours ago, tinman said:

So when the owner of both the sponsor and the club is the same, they can decide what is fair? 🤣

 

No, there should be something when it’s the same person/family who owns both club and company, but not if the club and company have no connections.

[Chesterfield_Ram]

1 hour ago, Gaspode said:

Isn't that a bit like selling your ground to another of your companies? or selling a player at an inflated price to the Greek club that you also happen to own....

I’m more on about dealing with external companies with no person or family connecting the 2.

[angieram]

1 hour ago, Chesterfield_Ram said:

I’m more on about dealing with external companies with no person or family connecting the 2.

I'm pretty sure if there's no connection, then companies won't be paying above fair market value anyway.

The rule is there to prevent companies with connections from exploiting the situation.

[Simmo’s left foot]

2 hours ago, angieram said:

I'm pretty sure if there's no connection, then companies won't be paying above fair market value anyway.

The rule is there to prevent companies with connections from exploiting the situation.

Certainly an easy way to inject cash informally. 

[kevinhectoring]

11 hours ago, Chesterfield_Ram said:

I know this is not Derby related, but I think the 'fair market value' policy introduced by the premier league is just wrong.

Surely, the value of a sponsorship is what a company is willing to pay for it. What do the PL expect clubs to do. 'thank you for offering £80 million to sponsor our shirt this year. But a fair value would be £50 million, so you can have some money back.'

I'm sure if a team negotiates a bad deal they won't let them bump up the price to a fair value in the accounts to allow them more spending space under ffp, so I don't see why they should punish clubs who negotiate good deals above what they class as fair value.

Talk to anyone on the commercial side at a club and they’ll say they can estimate what a sponsorship deal is likely to be worth. Some clubs (eg city) have owners who can persuade affiliated sponsors to pay over the odds. The PL is quite right to say this goes against the rules. The problem comes when they try to enforce the rules 

[kevinhectoring]

5 hours ago, angieram said:

I'm pretty sure if there's no connection, then companies won't be paying above fair market value anyway.

The rule is there to prevent companies with connections from exploiting the situation.

Depends a bit on what is meant by connection. Absent a formal connection a Middle Eastern owner might be able to persuade eg another ME entity to overpay for sponsorship. Through family pressure or political pressure or croneyism.  And behind the scenes there might be a balancing payment made to compensate them. 

[Chesterfield_Ram]

14 hours ago, angieram said:

I'm pretty sure if there's no connection, then companies won't be paying above fair market value anyway.

The rule is there to prevent companies with connections from exploiting the situation.

In my opinion it depends. I presume Wrexham’s sponsorship deals are above what other League 2 teams were getting last year and in the national league the year before.

[MadAmster]

44 minutes ago, Chesterfield_Ram said:

In my opinion it depends. I presume Wrexham’s sponsorship deals are above what other League 2 teams were getting last year and in the national league the year before.

... and, more than likely, other L1 sides this season.

[jimtastic56]

On 19/06/2024 at 15:32, Gaspode said:

Isn't that a bit like selling your ground to another of your companies? or selling a player at an inflated price to the Greek club that you also happen to own....

Everton are being purchased by an American ( don’t start that again) £Billionaire who also owns Roma . The Toffees are up to the neck in debt ,building a £Billion “state of the art “ stadium . Fighting relegation season after season . So why does he want them instead of building up a club like the Wrexham owners ? Impatience?