Mmmmm.... So essentially a team would have to weigh up if it was a price worth paying?Yes!
Masters recommended a 10 point deduction to the panel. He used the EFL criteria as a basis for the recommendation. It was something like £6mil fixed for the breach and £1mil for each £5mil over. CBA looking that bit up.
The panel told him to fuck off because it wasn't in the rules and then went ahead using their discretion and came up with the same 10 point deduction.
Villa account/aggregator.
Lads, we made it. We’re the ones trying to stay rich.
Note I've edited that post you've - getting mixed up between points and pounds :)Mmmmm.... So essentially a team would have to weigh up if it was a price worth paying?
I ask because I think as long as all bills were paid & the club had no outstanding debt, a move like that could signal the end of FFP or whatever it's being called this week.
It could then promote secure owner investment with the monies deposited into an escrow account, & counterbalanced by a fairer wages to turnover ratio rule.
Any port in a storm.Funny seeing the likes of Everton and Villa fans teaming up on the likes of Twitter having a go at the top 6 including City regarding FFP. Is it not sinking in with other fans that we’ve been calling out FFP for years. Trying to explain to them just falls on deaf ears
Mmmmm.... So essentially a team would have to weigh up if it was a price worth paying?
I ask because I think as long as all bills were paid & the club had no outstanding debt, a move like that could signal the end of FFP or whatever it's being called this week.
It could then promote secure owner investment with the monies deposited into an escrow account, & counterbalanced by a fairer wages to turnover ratio rule.
They voted for it though so tough shit. Ditto with Everton.As far as I'm aware, all inward revenue counts towards FFP, & Sheikh Mansour can spend what he likes on everything at City, apart from anything directly related to the first team squad, which tells you all you need to know about FFP.
This is what they did so City couldn't challenge the elite on the pitch. Take Newcastle for instance. They need to bolster their squad but can't because they're apparently nearly up to their FFP limit.
There's even talk of them having to sell one from Guimarães, Isak or Botman, so they can use the funds to bolster their squad.
However, if PIF wanted to spend £2bn rebuilding St James' Park, that's perfectly fine. But if they spent a few million more on their first team squad, they're in danger of falling foul of FFP.
This is why FFP's so unfair. How're Newcastle supposed to compete with the elite clubs, when they have to sell their best players to the elite clubs, so they can invest in other areas of their squad?
This was one of the points City made when UEFA were telling us to take our time & build our squad organically.
Because FFP limits an ambitious club from making the necessary first team squad investment to challenge the elite clubs, they're in danger of the elite clubs picking off their best players, which will keep the chasing clubs right where they are as FFP intended.
Clubs like Newcastle will essentially become a feeder club for the big boys. This is the unfair logical conclusion of FFP.
Thing is: if you fail for one three year period, there is a pretty good chance you will fail the next as well, and so on. Repeat offenders, I expect, will be treated more seriously than a one-off. We will see soon with Everton, I suppose.Mmmmm.... So essentially a team would have to weigh up if it was a price worth paying?
I ask because I think as long as all bills were paid & the club had no outstanding debt, a move like that could signal the end of FFP or whatever it's being called this week.
It could then promote secure owner investment with the monies deposited into an escrow account, & counterbalanced by a fairer wages to turnover ratio rule.
So again, a club would have to weigh up if it was a risk worth taking, & what Masters proposed is still subject to the panel's discretion?Note I've edited that post you've - getting mixed up between points and pounds :)
Should read:
Masters recommended a 10 point deduction to the panel. He used the EFL criteria as a basis for the recommendation. It was something like 6 points fixed for the breach and 1 point for each £5mil over. CBA looking that bit up.
The panel told him to fuck off because it wasn't in the rules and then went ahead using their discretion and came up with the same 10 point deduction.
I've now looked it up and that is what Masters proposed. If it was in the rules that would mean 6+20 points for a breach of £100 million and not neccessarily relegation
Superb.I think this particular Geordie was actually punched by a horse.
But let's say you bought a squad you wouldn't need to add to for 2-3 seasons, so saved that season's transfer budget, PL/CL money & any prize money earned, wouldn't that approach make it a risk worth considering?Thing is: if you fail for one three year period, there is a pretty good chance you will fail the next as well, and so on. Repeat offenders, I expect, will be treated more seriously than a one-off. We will see soon with Everton, I suppose.
Yes on both counts.So again, a club would have to weigh up if it was a risk worth taking, & what Masters proposed is still subject to the panel's discretion?
It is a dangerous game to play but, yes, a club could weigh up if it was a price worth paying.
Projectriver's case theory for Chelsea was they regarded a financial penalty as a "cost of doing business" and was what they likely expected for a breach.
The Everton case has potentially thrown that out of the window because the expectation now is a points deduction.
But let's say you bought a squad you wouldn't need to add to for 2-3 seasons, so saved that season's transfer budget, PL/CL money & any prize money earned, wouldn't that approach make it a risk worth considering?
So they'd need to get 60 points to stay up, with a far superior squad for the following season?
Mmmmm... Interesting (strokes chin).Yes on both counts.
Yes!
Masters recommended a 10 point deduction to the panel. He used the EFL criteria as a basis for the recommendation. It was something like 6 points fixed for the breach and 1 point for each £5mil over. CBA looking that bit up.
The panel told him to fuck off because it wasn't in the rules and then went ahead using their discretion and came up with the same 10 point deduction.
But couldn't that be possibly counterbalanced by spending nothing on transfers over that period?It's not the transfer budget they get hit with, it's the wages and amortisation on contracts. Once invested, that repeats every year.
Newcastle got to the CL with mostly mid-top table players. That's a decision individual players would have to make, so it couldn't be blanketly applied I'd imagine.But they won't get top four the champs league money players won't want to go to a midtable team who have been docked 20 points or even 10 sponsors won't be the good to! The red shirts thought it all through
Chelsea are in a bit of a pickle :)Everton, iirc, were punished heavily because they didn't take FFP seriously despite repeated warnings. Chelsea on the other hand, have been a good FFP citizen by spending a billion in two years, trying to get around amortisation rules with stupid contracts and .... hang on a minute ......