PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[domalino]

As for the rule changes, I was referring to Stefan’s view as I noted. (He knows)

I'm not sure why you keep repeating this - he can chime in for himself if he wants, but Stefan's always been of the view on twitter that the 2021 and 2022 related party rules will have zero effect on City, would impact Leicester, Newcastle and Everton, and the following 3 years has shown that to be true.

 

[wolviedinho]

This new watered down version is essentially a move to get rid of the whole thing while trying to save face. Instead of just saying, we fucked up by trying to ruin the league/City at the behest of dishonest brokers and catching forest and Everton in the crossfire. We have now decided to water it down until it looks nothing like the original concept.

They don’t know what they are doing and that is reflective in the mess created thus far.

This whole fair concept never existed before and it still dosent exist now no matter how hard they try to manipulate the playing field. City would not be able to happen and that should be enough to send shockwaves through every other football fan outside the sky big 4!

Clubs should be allowed their day in the sun, a chance for fans to dream big and watch the clubs they love win something meaningful as a reward for loyal support.

But don’t kid yourself into thinking that there is any fairness in football now or before ffp. Those clubs with deep pockets and high revenue will more than likely win. Keeping the champions league money away from teams like city and Newcastle on a regular basis is the aim. If we have it, they don’t.

 

[Gone for a Burton]

I agree that he didn’t want those clowns but that doesn’t mean that we as a club weren’t hampered in our attempts to buy proper players that summer by FFP

So why waste money on two championship standard players who would not play 20 first team games.

That's stupidity not compliance, and Bobby wasn't stupid....difficult probably but not stupid.

 

[Dribble]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/68713522

Some interesting figures.

We seriously need to up our matchday income game.

IIRC, after the government near enough halved our stadium grant from £150m to £80m. The stadium ambitions of a retractable roof were downgraded & the capacity was also reduced from 80,000 to 38,000 all-seater.

BUT the foundations were laid & the plans revised that we could revert to the original 80,000-seater design with a retractable roof in future. I've never understood why City didn't do this instead of increases from 38,000 to 48000, then to 55,000 with plans to increase the capacity again to 62,000.

We should have gone for the 80,000 all seater stadium with the retractable roof & made the additional 22,000 seats more affordable for the average fan. It would've cost way more, but that capital cost is outside of FFP. However, the vastly increased matchday revenue would add to our FFP/PSR bottom line, notwithstanding the larger concert & other sports capacity.

We seriously missed a trick here...

 

[Stoned Rose]

Because it has brought about a cartel rather than a co-op

Proposition Joe likes this.

 

[Fallingbostel Blue]

 

[Fallingbostel Blue]

This has got the Usual replies!

 

[Chi-town blues]

what's really interesting is the losses for the scumand Villa who lost more than allowed over 3 years in one year. Where are the charges? Or is a rule change pending to stop them from a points deduction

I wonder how more stark profit and loss chart for 2022-23 looks like ?
That ” volatile “ shit is throwing me bit off.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Can you explain how the luxury tax system in the NBA, as proposed to be the basis of the new PL system protects "cartel" clubs?

I will give you my impressions on how the new FFP rules can protect the "cartel" when the details of the new rules, whatever they are, are actually included in the handbook and I have read them. .

Just try to stop me :)

Right now, I have enough on my plate trying to understand what the fuck the PL is doing with its 115(?) alleged rule breaches.

 

[Gone for a Burton]

Premier League clubs' £1bn of losses in 11 charts

Last updated on 4 April 20244 April 2024.
From the section Premier League
972

index image showing Premier League clubs and their levels of debt
It has been called "the season of asterisks" but, with Premier League charges and points deductions dominating the news agenda, understanding football finances has become crucial for fans.

Everton and Nottingham Forest's rule breaches off the pitch could have a big say in the relegation battle on it, while Wolves, Aston Villa and Leicester have posted eye-watering losses in recent weeks.

With the help of football finance expert Kieran Maguire and his database of club accounts up to 2023, BBC Sport attempts to break down the overall Premier League picture in 11 charts.

At the time of publication, full 2023 accounts were unavailable for Chelsea, Crystal Palace, Fulham and Leeds, so their figures are based on 2022 accounts. Fulham's accounts are therefore from their Championship season 2021-2022. We will update the article when those accounts are published on Companies House.

1 & 2. Revenues

Graph showing the Premier League clubs total revenue for 2022 and 2023
Chart showing the Premier League clubs' total revenue for 2022 and 2023
"The Premier League has been spectacularly successful since it started in 1992," says Maguire. "Since that time consumer prices have increased by about 112% but Premier League revenues have increased by 2,800%.

"Clubs generate their revenue from three main sources: matchday, broadcast and commercial/sponsorship."

The combination of European football, higher Premier League merit payments and bigger stadiums show the gap between Newcastle and the 'big six' of Manchester City, Manchester United, Liverpool, Chelsea, Arsenal and Tottenham.

Graph showing where each Premier League's revenue came from in either 2022 or 2023, depending on accounts filed
Chart showing where each Premier League club's revenue came from in either 2022 or 2023, depending on accounts filed
3. Total wages

Wages are the biggest day-to-day running cost at a club.

Maguire says there is "an extremely high correlation between wages and final league position", but the following charts show the obvious risk and challenge for Leicester, who were relegated with the seventh highest wage bill in 2023.

Chart showing each Premier League club's total wage bill for 2022 and 2023
Chart showing each Premier League club's total wage bill for 2022 and 2023
4. Average weekly wages

Chart showing each Premier League club's average weekly wage for the playing squad
Chart showing each Premier League club's average weekly wage for the playing squad
5. Wages as a percentage of income

Why is all this data on wages important?

Uefa's new Financial Fair Play (FFP) measures allow clubs which compete in their competitions to spend 90% of their income on wages, transfers and agents fees in 2023-24, reducing to 80% in 2024-25 and 70% in 2025-26.

The Premier League could follow a similar ratio if it votes to change its financial rules for 2024-25.

Interestingly - Fulham's 2022 Championship season accounts aside - Leicester, Everton and Forest all top this chart, having all faced Premier League Profit and Sustainability (PSR) charges...

Premier League clubs' wage bill to income ratio (Fulham is 2022 Championship season so an outlier)
Premier League clubs' wage bill to income ratio (Fulham is 2022 Championship season, so an outlier)
6. Amortisation

Chelsea's strategy under owner Todd Boehly of signing expensive young players on long contracts to spread the cost introduced the word 'amortisation' to the footballing lexicon.

Enzo Fernandez's eight-year deal as part of his £106m transfer was one high-profile example.

This graph shows total amortisation cost for the financial year and relates to all the players in the squad who have been signed for transfer fees. It counts as a cost on Premier League profit and sustainability (PSR) accounts.

Premier League clubs total cost of transfers and contracts amortisation as of 2022 and 2023
Chelsea, despite this chart showing their 2022 accounts, still have the highest total amortisation cost
7 & 8. Profit/loss

Chart showing Premier League club's losses in Profit Before Tax for 2023
Chelsea, Crystal Palace, Fulham and Leeds do not have a value in this chart for Profit Before Tax (PBT) as their full accounts have not yet been published on Companies House. Chelsea (£90m), Fulham (£26m) and Palace (£24m) have announced initial top line losses for 2023.
Maguire says wages and transfer fees absorb about 90% of total Premier League revenue across all 20 clubs, with most clubs losing money day-to-day. Selling players or relying on owner generosity are the only way to cover the losses.

"It cost former Chelsea owner Roman Abramovich about £900,000 a week for 19 years in terms of interest-free loans to cover the club's losses," Maguire said.

In their press releases on finances, clubs often declare a profit before tax (PBT) figure - which includes players being sold or bought - such as Bournemouth's £44m profit or Everton's £89m loss.

Maguire's figures also show a separate, more stark profit and loss chart for 2022-23, where the money recouped from player sales is excluded due to it being a "volatile", unpredictable market.

In this chart, only Brentford (£4m) made a profit from day-to-day trading and the total losses of the 20 Premier League clubs were about £1bn - even without the 2023 accounts of big-spending Chelsea, Crystal Palace, Leeds and Fulham.

Chart showing Premier League club's losses without player sales
This chart shows that - when you remove the up and down market of player trading from their accounts - every Premier League club except Brentford made a loss in their 2023 or 2022 accounts
Premier League: Who owns your club and what does it mean?
9. Player trading

As BBC Sport reported this week, Brighton's profits of £123m after tax for 2022-23 were a Premier League record - and did not even include the combined £125m sale of Moises Caicedo and Roberto Sanchez to Chelsea.

They were one of very few Premier League clubs not to record a negative net spend from player trading, underlining the difficulty of executing owner Tony Bloom and chief executive Paul Barber's strategy.

This chart shows how much each Premier League club had spent or made after buying and selling players in the football accounting year up to May or June 2023 in most cases.
This chart shows how much each Premier League club spent or made after buying and selling players in the football accounting year up to May or June 2023 in most cases
10. Total squad costs

A chart showing total squad cost at the point which each Premier League club
The total squad cost at the point which each Premier League club filed their accounts - most are from 2023. Chelsea's is from 2022.
Another chart, like wages and revenue, that reflects the strength of the 'big six'.

Maguire says: "At the end of 2022-23 Premier League clubs had invested over £9bn on transfer fees, building their squads over the years, with both Manchester City and Chelsea spending more than £1bn each."

Here's a further table to illustrate that £9bn figure...

A 10-year report from the CIES Football Observatory report on the highest net-spending clubs in the world since 2014 shows Premier League net spending compared to some of the European giants.

Highest net spending (2014-2023)
1. Manchester United - £1,196.6m 11. Aston Villa - £414.3m
2. Chelsea - £885.5m 12. Liverpool - £395.3m
3. Paris St-Germain - £865.8m 13. Al-Hilal - £391.3m
4. Arsenal - £746.9m 14. Juventus - £385m
5. Manchester City - £733.8m 15. Everton - £336.1m
6. Newcastle United - £575.2m 16. Crystal Palace - £322.3m
7. Barcelona - £568.4m 17. Bournemouth - £294.9m
8. Tottenham - £522.1m 18. Bayern Munich - £294.1m
9. AC Milan - £467.3m 19. Real Madrid - £277.6m
10. West Ham - £451.9m 20. Nottingham Forest - £265.8m
Stats from CIES Football Observatory Monthly Report
Since 2014 the Premier League's combined net spend is more than £9.5bn, the Chinese Super League is second with £1.14bn, and the Saudi Pro League is third with a net spend of about £1.13bn.

In comparison, the Portuguese Primeira Liga made a profit of about £1.9bn on player transfers in the same period.

11. Total debt

And to the big one....

Football is an expensive business. And then there is the significant borrowing of clubs such as Manchester United or Tottenham for their new stadium.

"Net debt is the total amount of borrowings that a club has, less any cash," says Maguire.

According to his figures, current Premier League club debt levels are approximately £3.6bn...

Chart showing each Premier League club's net debt position
Chelsea's net debt figure here is an outlier as it is a 2022 figure when Todd Boehly's consortium bought the club from Roman Abramovich for £4.25bn. Abramovich did not ask for his £1.5bn loan to Chelsea to be repaid.
Additional reporting by Sam Chadderton. Visual Journalism by Lee Martin.

View Comments972

Thanks for this, very interesting.

An example of why this subject needs more specialist & professional 'LIGHT' & perhaps less enthusiastic emotional 'HEAT'.

I remain astonished that the media are still not recognising the emerging route of travel, depth of chaos and paucity of leadership at the PL that is exposing it to so many unfavourable accusations.

It is nothing short of disgraceful and one day someone will make a fortune from writing the book !!

 

[Gone for a Burton]

Follow the facts and you'll find the money.

 

[yankblue]

Can you explain how the luxury tax system in the NBA, as proposed to be the basis of the new PL system protects "cartel" clubs?

The crossover I never thought I'd get!

Very high level the NBA works like this:

There's a 'salary floor', which stipulates the minimum a team must spend on salaries. For examples sake lets say it's 50m. A team must spend that much. If for example they are below, and spending 45m, the league will tax them the difference (5m) and give that to the players on the team.

Then theres a "soft" salary cap. Lets say its 100m for examples sake. This is the most a team can spend on salary without being punished or taxed.

After that there is "hard salary cap" or "apron". For examples sake lets say its 172m (because I think thats what it actually is). Teams can go over the 100m soft cap threshold up to 172m by retaining their own players/etc., but they are taxed on it. So they may be paying a player a 5m salary, but if theyre over the 100m threshold, the NBA will tax them double, so its actually 10m. The extra is distributed to teams not over the cap. Taxes increase the further over the 100m you are and the longer youre over the tax. So a 5m salary to a player can cost the team 10m, 15m, 20m, etc.

Fascinating how American sports are so socialist while Europeans lean more into unfettered capitalism. One of life's greatest ironies.

The salary cap system wouldn't work in the prem (not that you are suggesting it). The leagues are just so different. The cap would have to be set at the lowest teams spending power which would fluctuate wildly with promotion/relegation. The players wages would also plummet collectively (if every club only had the spending power of Luton...) and there's no way they'd go for that.

 

[Citizen of Legoland]

The crossover I never thought I'd get!

Very high level the NBA works like this:

There's a 'salary floor', which stipulates the minimum a team must spend on salaries. For examples sake lets say it's 50m. A team must spend that much. If for example they are below, and spending 45m, the league will tax them the difference (5m) and give that to the players on the team.

Then theres a "soft" salary cap. Lets say its 100m for examples sake. This is the most a team can spend on salary without being punished or taxed.

After that there is "hard salary cap" or "apron". For examples sake lets say its 172m (because I think thats what it actually is). Teams can go over the 100m soft cap threshold up to 172m by retaining their own players/etc., but they are taxed on it. So they may be paying a player a 5m salary, but if theyre over the 100m threshold, the NBA will tax them double, so its actually 10m. The extra is distributed to teams not over the cap. Taxes increase the further over the 100m you are and the longer youre over the tax. So a 5m salary to a player can cost the team 10m, 15m, 20m, etc.

Fascinating how American sports are so socialist while Europeans lean more into unfettered capitalism. One of life's greatest ironies.

The salary cap system wouldn't work in the prem (not that you are suggesting it). The leagues are just so different. The cap would have to be set at the lowest teams spending power which would fluctuate wildly with promotion/relegation. The players wages would also plummet collectively (if every club only had the spending power of Luton...) and there's no way they'd go for that.

Rich people giving money to other slightly less rich people isn't socialism I don't think. If anything it's a cartel.

 

[domalino]

The salary cap system wouldn't work in the prem (not that you are suggesting it). The leagues are just so different. The cap would have to be set at the lowest teams spending power which would fluctuate wildly with promotion/relegation. The players wages would also plummet collectively (if every club only had the spending power of Luton...) and there's no way they'd go for that.

Sorry, you walked into a long discussion, I do actually know the NBA rules pretty well.

IMO it will work in football because they're usng the % of revenue already being brought in for UEFA and the second apron which you missed off.

It's not about limiting total spend to a specific figure (ie wages of $165m), it's about allowing but controlling overspending.

You will be allowed to spend 70% of revenue on combined transfer and wage costs.

Overspend by X% and you get fined.

Overspend by Y% and combined sporting/financial punishments come in. Not being able to sign-and-trade a player if their salary takes you over the cap. Salary matching in trades not allowed, not being able to use trade exceptions.

These are technically financial sanctions but they directly impact the sport.

Overspend by Z% for too long and you get straight sporting punishment. In the NBA this is losing the ability to trade draft picks and your 1st round pick going to #30.


The idea is that an ambitious club like Wolves/Villa/Newcastle can live in the X% zone, paying a financial penalty for being able to spend like the clubs above them before their revenues have caught up.

Which they're currently not allowed to do.

Which would be very bad for any clubs at the top of the table who wanted to sit on their laurels and rake in money.

 

[Stoned Rose]

Nothing. I was talking about the rest of the pyramid, if you bothered to read the post. The clue is in the first sentence.
You have entered your usual nonsensical realm now, driven by your belief that you are right about everything. Stop posting and take a deep breath.

Nonsensical Realm.

Sounds like a Paloma Faith tour.

 

[halfcenturyup]

The crossover I never thought I'd get!

Very high level the NBA works like this:

There's a 'salary floor', which stipulates the minimum a team must spend on salaries. For examples sake lets say it's 50m. A team must spend that much. If for example they are below, and spending 45m, the league will tax them the difference (5m) and give that to the players on the team.

Then theres a "soft" salary cap. Lets say its 100m for examples sake. This is the most a team can spend on salary without being punished or taxed.

After that there is "hard salary cap" or "apron". For examples sake lets say its 172m (because I think thats what it actually is). Teams can go over the 100m soft cap threshold up to 172m by retaining their own players/etc., but they are taxed on it. So they may be paying a player a 5m salary, but if theyre over the 100m threshold, the NBA will tax them double, so its actually 10m. The extra is distributed to teams not over the cap. Taxes increase the further over the 100m you are and the longer youre over the tax. So a 5m salary to a player can cost the team 10m, 15m, 20m, etc.

Fascinating how American sports are so socialist while Europeans lean more into unfettered capitalism. One of life's greatest ironies.

The salary cap system wouldn't work in the prem (not that you are suggesting it). The leagues are just so different. The cap would have to be set at the lowest teams spending power which would fluctuate wildly with promotion/relegation. The players wages would also plummet collectively (if every club only had the spending power of Luton...) and there's no way they'd go for that.

So what about the 172? How do they stop a team going over that?

Edit: Sorry if it's a stupid question. Educate me.

 

[fulabeer]

Fascinating how American sports are so socialist while Europeans lean more into unfettered capitalism. One of life's greatest ironies.

Easy to be generous when you have a monopoly. Ie no relegation.
They just carve up the profits with no risk or danger.
That isn't sport. It's just entertainment like the Harlem Globe Trotters etc.

 

[yankblue]

So what about the 172? How do they stop a team going over that?

They're just not allowed to - contracts have to be approved by the league so I'd imagine they'd cancel anything not in compliance

 

[Stoned Rose]

Those and other signings were designed to piss Bobby Manc off.

They had to wait another 12 months to achieve that after four players including David Silva,allegedly,said they would leave if he stayed.

There’s some absolute spunk on this thread but this theory makes me worry for your sanity.

 

[yankblue]

Easy to be generous when you have a monopoly. Ie no relegation.
They just carve up the profits with no risk or danger.
That isn't sport. It's just entertainment like the Harlem Globe Trotters etc.

That was just an offhanded joke on my part not meant to be taken seriously. I agree with what you're saying but it's definitely a sport with plenty of risk, it just functions differently.