New PL financial controls | Clubs agree squad spending cap 'in principle'

[waspish]

What I want to know is who thinks up all these new rules? Who of the premier clubs talk behind other clubs backs? I'll give you one Levy the snake! Now he has his stadium the biggest match day revenues in the league him and no doubt Liverpool Arsenal and the other no all at palace I'd bet!

So why when they said there was going to copy the uefa model they changed it?

 

[christened at st marks]

Both domestic cups would become EDS cups and crocked players would be cut from the squad, also players reaching the end of their careers.
Also think the Super League could make a comeback.
The good thing is the rags are fucked under these new rules

 

[Gorbachev]

Never happen mate - best will in the world, let's say Mbappe wanted to come to England on a free.

For arguments sake, Middlesbrough have been promoted through the play offs and get first pick.

The only other team that shows interest in him is Chelsea matching the T's & C's.

You are not forcing a multi-millionaire to move to a part of the country that they really don't want to IF they have options.............

I agree mate, but that is the model that happens in the USA under the draft.

A player can find out one morning he is moving from LA to Seattle and that's that, off you go.

That's the end game for the US owners in my opinion.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Can one of you kind souls, perhaps @halfcenturyup give me a very nutshell version of the new rule please?

OK, here goes. It's complicated.

And nobody really knows, yet. This is just another leak from a PL meeting.

But it appears that what a club can spend on the squad will be restricted to a multiple of the PL broadcast income of the lowest club in the league.

So if Sheffield United are making 100 million from the PL, no club can spend more than 4, 5 or 6 times that (multiple is unclear) on wages and amortisation.

So if a top club's revenue goes up, it can't spend more on the squad as they will go over the limit. Super profits!

For City, it will limit our competitiveness in Europe and our dominance in the PL.

For Newcastle, it, in theory at least, if there are no other financial controls, means they can spend the same as the top clubs even if their revenues are much smaller.

Too long?

Edit: It seems the 85% squad rule will still be in place, so Newcastle can still only spend 85% of their smaller revenue on the above example.

 

[halfcenturyup]

What happens when Sky re-negotiate and their deal comes down significantly? I’m guessing the clubs will have to look at increasing the season ticket prices.

We’ve already seen how their latest deal was lower than the previous one. May have achieved more money but on a game by game basis my understanding is it was lower.

I’m not sure what the answer is to be fair. Then again, I don’t know what the question is!!

How many roads must a man walk down?

 

[TonyM]

I like that the rule isn't based on revenue. I'd even favour a limit that was the same for everyone, e.g. 200m spend on players wages full stop, 200m on transfers full stop (including agent fees). Maybe have a carry-over so underspending isn't wasteful.

Maybe another rule to ensure that you can pay your non-player wages and expenses.

I don't mind us losing the best European players if everyone else is. The PL clubs can get knocked out of the CL and fight for the Europa League instead. Grand job.

If it could be fair, I'd be all for it. But it won't be because Liverpool, Arsenal and Spurs are entitled pricks who will ensure that they are massively advantaged.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Almost, but This is being brought in alongside the 85% rule. Not instead. At least that’s what the Times exclusive and BBC radio are saying.

So you can still only spend 85% of revenue, but if your revenue is £1Bn, you can’t spend £850m (85%), you can only spend 6x* the revenue** of the poorest club. Which last year was £520m or so.

The aim is to stop the gap between the top CL clubs and the bottom 8 growing. It will force the top 6 to keep sharing all the TV and PL commercial money, because the bottom clubs revenues have to grow for the top clubs to keep spending more and more.

Kieran Maguire just said on 5Live that it’s come from the bottom 14 clubs, so they’re the ones after it.


*The exact multiplier isn’t known. 4.5, 5 and 6 have all been rumoured.

**What revenue isn’t set either, it could be total revenue or it could be just their central payments revenue (TV and prize money and PL commercial deals).

So what we need is a rule that the bottom club gets 200 million with the rest shared. Job done :)

Edit: The more I think about it, the more it all seems pretty pointless.

The only real effect will be to stop Chelsea spending on their squad, possibly City if the multiple is on the lower side. But City's revenue and wages last year were pretty much as high as they are going to be, the gap between City and the rest wasn't going to get much bigger anyway, and the club still has the 70% squad cost and break even requirements of UEFA to contend with.

The next level clubs (Liverpool, United, Arsenal, Spurs, villa now) also have to comply with UEFA's FFP and have less revenue, so can't just max out their spend under the new rule.

The middle level clubs are bound by the 85% rule and so can't invest substantially to compete with the big boys without increasing revenue which will be difficult, except maybe for Newcastle.

And for the lower level clubs with the lowest turnover, this new rule is irrelevant. They have no chance of investing to compete.

If they really want to increase competition by allowing the lower level clubs to be able to compete with the middle, and the middle level clubs to compete with the top level, they should remove financial control in the PL completely as long as losses are proactively offset by equity so debt is controlled. Much easier and much less complicated.

 

[bobom]

Much will depend on the detail and the actual factor of the lowest clubs' TV revenue clubs can invest, but compared to many financial controls this one doesn't seem completely shit, and I like the fact it might level the playing field a bit.

 

[MMA]

Fuck em.
If this new rule came in it would come down to who's got the best coaching staff and manager.
As it pretty much does anyway but even more so.
Just move heaven and earth and get pep to stay on a 10 year contract extension.
They'd all jump off a cliff.

 

[ChicagoBlue]

OK, here goes. It's complicated.

And nobody really knows, yet. This is just another leak from a PL meeting.

But it appears that what a club can spend on the squad will be restricted to a multiple of the PL broadcast income of the lowest club in the league.

So if Sheffield United are making 100 million from the PL, no club can spend more than 4, 5 or 6 times that (multiple is unclear) on wages and amortisation.

So if a top club's revenue goes up, it can't spend more on the squad as they will go over the limit. Super profits!

For City, it will limit our competitiveness in Europe and our dominance in the PL.

For Newcastle, it, in theory at least, if there are no other financial controls, means they can spend the same as the top clubs even if their revenues are much smaller.

Too long?

Edit: It seems the 85% squad rule will still be in place, so Newcastle can still only spend 85% of their smaller revenue on the above example.

Simple solution: Socialize TV revenues!

€2,000,000,000 TV rights revenues equals €100,000,000 per club.

Multiply by 6 equals €600,000,000 total first team squad expenses. Profits based of the excess revenues above that level can be spent on a schedule:

e.g.
30% spent on reducing ticket prices,
30% spent on facilities
10% spent on the Community/Grassroots
30% to ownership

Spitballing.