PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[hammocity]

That’s not right. If Newcastle have a turnover of £250M and are not in Europe, they can spend £187.5M (85% of turnover). If they’re in Europe it’s reduced to 70% of turnover as that turnover is expected to rise, due to being in Europe.

Not sure what happens if you’re in Europe one season, out the next, back in and back out……….

Btw, 85% of 250 is 212.50 :-)

 

[John Wayne]

It would be best if the PL had no restrictions whatsoever.

The clubs at the top would he necessarily restricted by UEFA's regulations which would ultimately act as an anchor in preventing absurdity that might theoretically be brought about by, say, PIF/ Newcastle spending.

The clubs not in Europe would then have a slightly better chance at catching up but would ultimately would be tempered by UEFA's regulations.

I see your point - a two-tiered spending restriction, ie domestic and European, is fraught with difficulties. What happens if a team qualifies for Europe for the first time, has to pay contractual bonuses as a result, then misses out on Europe the following campaign? How can the club be expected to monitor their spend to turnover ratio in a two-tier system when so much is uncertain in football?

The proposed rules seem to once again only benefit the few. By anchoring spend to the bottom club's TV revenue, you'd think that it might make things more egalitarian, however, the 85% rule crushes any ambitions from would-be interlopers. If you're Liverpool or Arsenal, you therefore need not worry about anyone else sneaking up behind you. At the other end, it prevents the very big revenue generators (the Manchester clubs) from staying ahead of you by limiting their investment.

These rules are clearly intended to protect the interests of some of the top clubs both from above them and below.

 

[JewelZee]

Who the fuck are 'pool'

Cess?

 

[Holcombe bloo]

So you think a 200m hole in spending ability is business as usual?

if our current wages are 450 inc all bonus, player amortisation about 135 and agents say 20m

I think if a ratio of 5 = approx 520m spend on players so not great
5.5 about 575 so not much short of current spend and ratio of 6 is business as usual. I am against the proposal overall as it limits owner investment, im sure the sheikh would rather determine when he does or doesn’t invest all profits into the club rather than it be decided by this means. But we might not have much of a choice if it’s what 16 clubs want to do.

My real point was about the academy to get our above figures down a bit, and we have the best academy facility in world football.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Was thinking about this last night. Is the new spending cap on Net Spend? Surely it must be which makes the Academy even more imprtant.

Ask yourself who has the best academy for your answer.

But, it makes much more sense, as you say, for the squad cost to be wages + amortised contract costs less profits on sale. It would be very odd, in accounting terms, if contract costs were included but not the increased values you get back when you sell. There is no accounting justification at all, as far as I can see. But see the first paragraph.

 

[burning blue soul]

Lol!!! There will be players striking over this. Players and their agents will be already on high alert!
And so they should.

 

[halfcenturyup]

That’s not right. If Newcastle have a turnover of £250M and are not in Europe, they can spend £187.5M (85% of turnover). If they’re in Europe it’s reduced to 70% of turnover as that turnover is expected to rise, due to being in Europe.

Not sure what happens if you’re in Europe one season, out the next, back in and back out……….

I'm sure. You are fucked :)

Edit: I was joking, there would be some mitigation presumably.

 

[Elbow beards]

Premier league might as well say to the top players " fuck off to the Saudi league cos you ain't getting paid that much here"

 

[abu13]

Lol!!! There will be players striking over this. Players and their agents will be already on high alert!
And so they should.

Yes, the first sign of players and agents earnings being affected and a whole new battle will commence. it's a complete shitshow.

The simple solution is to allow clubs to spend whatever they want to but ensure that should they qualify for Europe then they need to meet the requirements of UEFA.

 

[BerkshireBlue]

Ask yourself who has the best academy for your answer.

But, it makes much more sense, as you say, for the squad cost to be wages + amortised contract costs less profits on sale. It would be very odd, in accounting terms, if contract costs were included but not the increased values you get back when you sell. There is no accounting justification at all, as far as I can see. But see the first paragraph.

What I can guarantee is that none of this will have been thrashed out during the meeting, they'll have just voted on the dream and not thought about the details or consequences. I'd want it all written down including the sanctions and punishments if the rule is broken before ever voting for it but that's just me