Angus Kinnear

terryefc said:
A decent CEO and someone with half a clue about accountancy would not have allowed Moshiri's finance to be reflected in the way it was - which led to our ridiculous points deductions.
Click to expand...

an out of control premier league and dick masters led to our ridiculous point deductions
 

Billy Dean said:
What's the new ruling?
Click to expand...
Basically owner loans which might previously have been at nil or favourable interest rates have to be treated as commercial loans and commercial loan rates applied to them.
Part of the Man City PSR case, not sure why that drove the change and it seems like a massive bit of ‘Whataboutism’ from City.
So where Tony Bloom is standing Brighton up for loans to the tune of £373m for free, the equivalent commercial loan interest rate now has to be applied in the PSR calcs.

Ours was wiped clean I believe when TFG bought out Mosh so we should also be at £0 in the next set of figures afaik.
 
Bedfordblue said:
Basically owner loans which might previously have been at nil or favourable interest rates have to be treated as commercial loans and commercial loan rates applied to them.
Part of the Man City PSR case, not sure why that drove the change and it seems like a massive bit of ‘Whataboutism’ from City.
So where Tony Bloom is standing Brighton up for loans to the tune of £373m for free, the equivalent commercial loan interest rate now has to be applied in the PSR calcs.

Ours was wiped clean I believe when TFG bought out Mosh so we should also be at £0 in the next set of figures afaik.
Click to expand...
That's weird. So cash injections from owners are being punished essentially?
 

Billy Dean said:
That's weird. So cash injections from owners are being punished essentially?
Click to expand...
Only if they are ‘loans’, if they give the money via a share issue type funding scheme then no. They can’t pull the money out then unless they sell up and the club is valuable enough to generate the return.

I can see why they would apply it, it’s conceivably a form of financial doping I guess, extending a line of credit to a club that might not be able to afford it otherwise etc.

My personal view is owners should be able to put as much in as they like, provided there are measures in place to isolate the clubs from any financial difficulty's the owners might have down the road.
 
Last edited:
Bedfordblue said:
Only if they are ‘loans’, if they give the money via a share issue type funding scheme then no. They can’t pull the money out then unless they sell up and the club is valuable enough to generate the return.

I can see why they would apply it, it’s conceivably a form of financial doping I guess, extending a line of credit to a club that might not be able to afford it otherwise etc.

My personal view is owners should be able to put as much in as they like, provided there are measures in place to isolate the clubs from any financial difficulty's the owners might have down the road.
Click to expand...
I would have agreed in the days of local businessmen owning the club - but when countries start buying them - like City and Newcastle - then that is clearly unfair - so there has to be restrictions.
 
terryefc said:
I would have agreed in the days of local businessmen owning the club - but when countries start buying them - like City and Newcastle - then that is clearly unfair - so there has to be restrictions.
Click to expand...
I understand, but my view is whether an ‘owner’ has £8b or $800b, a team will only ever be able to field 11 players and have another 11 or so in reserve. So is the 2nd best left back in the world going to be happy to spend at least 50% of their career on the bench because the best LB is keeping them out of the the team, or are they going to seek to be a starter elsewhere?
Notwithstanding having the two best players in the league for every position doesn’t always equate to the best team.
Man U have continued to spend eye watering amounts of money but hasn’t don’t them much good (nor our own splurge!)
Also in terms of restrictions, i agree in so much an owner should not be able to spend (or owe) so much money that it risks the future of the club if they somehow find their own finances somehow at risk. I said before about escrow accounts to cover any liabilities the owners commit their clubs too.

I just don’t see it as much different from when it was local businessmen only there’s more zeros on the balance sheet nowaday’s.
 
Bedfordblue said:
I understand, but my view is whether an ‘owner’ has £8b or $800b, a team will only ever be able to field 11 players and have another 11 or so in reserve. So is the 2nd best left back in the world going to be happy to spend at least 50% of their career on the bench because the best LB is keeping them out of the the team, or are they going to seek to be a starter elsewhere?
Notwithstanding having the two best players in the league for every position doesn’t always equate to the best team.
Man U have continued to spend eye watering amounts of money but hasn’t don’t them much good (nor our own splurge!)
Also in terms of restrictions, i agree in so much an owner should not be able to spend (or owe) so much money that it risks the future of the club if they somehow find their own finances somehow at risk. I said before about escrow accounts to cover any liabilities the owners commit their clubs too.
Click to expand...
I've always thought it stank that Real Madrid and Barcelona shared 50% of TV money - and the remaining 50% was shared between all the others. How is that fair? May have changed now - but the fact is Real Madrid were allowed to affectively sweep up whoever they wanted - knowing the National Bank would bail them out.
If I'm playing Monopoly I'm not playing against someone who has their own bank.
 

Welcome

Join Grand Old Team to get involved in the Everton discussion. Signing up is quick, easy, and completely free.

Register

Shop

Back
Top