PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese said:
All this desperate legislative flailing about from the PL is proving is that proper independent regulation is needed. Even if they manage to come up with a decent proposal it's not right for the PL to be judge, jury and executioner as it were - they are viewed at least as too partisan.
Click to expand...

Why isn't it right for the 20 clubs to vote on rules that govern them? That's what they've been doing for 30 years and in that time the Premier League has gone from strength to strength, become one of the country's biggest cultural exports, generates billions for the economy and is the best football league in the world.

What exactly do you think getting this current government involved is going to improve? Are you happy with OFCOM? Are you happy with any statutory corporation in this country? TFL, British Rail, BBC etc.?
 
domalino said:
The ceiling is already being set with the new FFP/PSR rules where spending (on players and wages and some other stuff) can't be more than 70% of revenue.

So that's where the limit is. You pay tax into a big pot for every £1 you spend over your limit.

In American sports all the tax money is then pooled and given out to the teams that are under their limit - but that doesn't have to be set in stone.

The main point of the new proposal is that it makes it possible to overspend short term, but makes it unsustaiable long term by being expensive, and you get diminishing returns the more you overspend because more and more of your "extra" money is going to tax instead of your squad.
Click to expand...
fair enough seems another way of making the league more american, no shock there.
 
domalino said:
The ceiling is already being set with the new FFP/PSR rules where spending (on players and wages and some other stuff) can't be more than 70% of revenue.

So that's where the limit is. You pay tax into a big pot for every £1 you spend over your limit.

In American sports all the tax money is then pooled and given out to the teams that are under their limit - but that doesn't have to be set in stone.

The main point of the new proposal is that it makes it possible to overspend short term, but makes it unsustaiable long term by being expensive, and you get diminishing returns the more you overspend because more and more of your "extra" money is going to tax instead of your squad.
Click to expand...
As soon as they seek to regulate debt to the extent of spending I might believe it's sincere.
 
mancboy said:
i think it would have to be because how do you then determine if the club can indeed afford it, how do they decide what the ceiling is for how much you can spend because the wage spend is so disparate throughout the clubs that some clubs could immediately be on the wrong side of it.

If the money is spread around clubs then thats a good thing but i dont think it will stop clubs spending beyond their means except now they will be aiming to service debt while paying the pl to boot.
Click to expand...

Personal opinion, but I think clubs should be allowed to spend beyond their means as long as they pay any money owed to other clubs for transfers etc.

Every club has the right to play it safe, or to shoot for the stars - with the increased risk as the downside obviously.

The luxury tax as it stands as an idea though, would seemingly allow teams to almost do what they want - until they qualify for Europe as they would then have FFP to deal with, so theyd have to get their houses in order at that point.

The two ideas really don't sit great alongside each other.
 
domalino said:
Why isn't it right for the 20 clubs to vote on rules that govern them? That's what they've been doing for 30 years and in that time the Premier League has gone from strength to strength, become one of the country's biggest cultural exports, generates billions for the economy and is the best football league in the world.

What exactly do you think getting this current government involved is going to improve?
Click to expand...
Because it has brought about a cartel rather than a co-op
 
Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese said:
As soon as they seek to regulate debt to the extent of spending I might believe it's sincere.
Click to expand...

Maybe they could make it so transfer fees have to be paid in one go, when the player is signed. That way if a club does go bust any clubs don't end up being owed money that they'll never see.

Won't happen, obviously.
 
domalino said:
If people actually consider the luxury tax for what it is, rather than getting angry at the idea PSR rules are being changed or the idea it's come from America then I think they'll realise it offers everybody what they want and is quite clearly the way forward.

Hedge fund vultures can sit back and get paid for other owners' ambitions.

Owners with a big plan or who want to invest can do so and just pay a small fine for a spend now, grow later approach.

It disincentivises overspending so that it's going to be temporary.
Click to expand...
I said I assume the luxury tax is aimed at the likes of City. I dont know. And thats because we were sold FFP as something to stop Bury happening, and that has turned out to be total bollocks. Its not what it said on the tin, so I assume this is the same.

You sound like you trust our PL owners, the PL business world, as being completely honest, open, fair. They're not. It seems everything they do is to benefit the top tier, thats human nature, to suggest theyre going to suddenly be fair and everyone just trust them is naive.
 
domalino said:
Why isn't it right for the 20 clubs to vote on rules that govern them?
Click to expand...
Because they'll just put self-interest over wider issues. This has long been the case in the EFL, where obvious changes for the better that would benefit the collective have been voted down because many of the clubs think that it might negatively impact them at some future point.

If you're not already aware of it, Google 'Tragedy of the Commons'.

Aristotle even recognised the phenomenon over 2,000 years ago "What is common to many is taken least care of, for all men have greater regard for what is their own than for what they possess in common with others."
 
Gorton_Tubster said:
You sound like you trust our PL owners, the PL business world, as being completely honest, open, fair. They're not. It seems everything they do is to benefit the top tier, thats human nature, to suggest theyre going to suddenly be fair and everyone just trust them is naive.
Click to expand...

The Premier League is not some mythic beast. It's 20 clubs voting for their own self interest.

Not the interest of those at the top, or those in the middle or the bottom, just 20 clubs voting for themselves usually in very predicatable and transparent fashion. And the EFL is exactly the same, they don't care about fans or the future of football any more than the PL.

It's in the interest of the majority of the league to have financial rules that benefit existing owners and potential new investors and keep things competitive at the top. So that's what they'll vote for IMO.
 
WRicko said:
You have to obey the law as it is now why would this be any different
Click to expand...
Actually, it is the regs at the time of the alleged infringement.
Interestingly, you could make a case that punishments that were not in force at the time cannot be used retrospectively for old cases. Hmmmm…. Calling Pannick…
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
Because they'll just put self-interest over wider issues. This has long been the case in the EFL, where obvious changes for the better that would benefit the collective have been voted down because many of the clubs think that it might negatively impact them at some future point.

If you're not already aware of it, Google 'Tragedy of the Commons'.

Aristotle even recognised the phenomenon over 2,000 years ago "What is common to many is taken least care of, for all men have greater regard for what is their own than for what they possess in common with others."
Click to expand...

The difference is that the PL is a group of 20, not a group of 72 spread across 4 divisions and the Premier League has shown itself to be incredibly successful under it's own governance.

They've been putting self interest over wider issues for 30 years and it's made them the most successful football league in the world.

You want to pretend that the Premier League is incapable of running itself because, but what evidence is there for that? Is it not more successful than any other sports league? Is it not growing quicker? Is it not the most competitive of the big football leagues? Where is it failing?
 
Last edited:
domalino said:
Really? Because I couldn't have made it any clearer. How is the Premier League a cartel and not a co-op?
Click to expand...
Because it seems to be serving a small group of financially dominant clubs at the top of the tree and it's attempt to sell it's efforts at 'fair play' regulation as an attempt to prevent another Bury / Portsmouth etc are at best misguided and at worst dishonest - because they do not address debt.
All 20 clubs indeed have a vote, but only on a narrow choice of options. I don't recall a vote on punitive sanctions on debt for example - only spending.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top