halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 14,943
And the 172 would be based on a multiple of the lowest salary cost? Or did I misunderstand that?
PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules
- Thread starter ayrshire_blue
- Start date
And the 172 would be based on a multiple of the lowest salary cost? Or did I misunderstand that?
wolviedinho
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 19 Oct 2010
- Messages
- 23,952
- Location
- Doublethink
- Team supported
- Super City from Maine Road(not wolves)
oakiecokie
Well-Known Member
He has an opinion about everything and clearly is never wrong.
Waste of time even trying to hold a decent conversation with people like him.
halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 14,943
:) Wasn't Cook still the CEO that summer? Not sure he would be part of a Mancini-out conspiracy. Although I am perfectly happy to believe that Mansour wanted Mancini out in 2013 after Soriano and Begiristain were settled.
Not sure of all the dates. Whatever, it was a crap summer window :)
If I understand your question - all contracts up to the 100m "soft cap" don't have a luxury tax or multiplier. Any contract that goes over and afterwards does, and theres a multiplier on that specific contract(s).
So say a team is at 95m. They give another contract to a player for 10m. That puts them over the threshold, so that 10m contract and anything after it will have a multiplier attached to it.
Not sure if that answers your question or not let me know!
Gone for a Burton
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2022
- Messages
- 6,398
- Team supported
- City
Never been better thanks Rosie.
halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 14,943
Sorry, badly phrased. You said there was a soft cap of, say, 100 and a hard cap of 172. I was wondering how the 172 was calculated? Is it a multiple of the floor? For that matter, how is the 100 calculated?
Btw, I love the idea of a salary floor. Poor Luton would be fucked. Shame :)
the-ecstacy-of-eight
Well-Known Member
It seems like an even more convoluted and confusing system to me (but maybe that's in design).
Like you, I have so many questions....
Does the floor value change every year depending upon which of the promoted teams has the lowest value squad? Because this simply isn't workable, it's akin to how we were stitched up by UEFA's goalpost moving. Or do teams who, despite winning the championship, have their entry to the Prem. barred because their team value doesn't meet the floor? Because that won't be accepted by any team outside of those already in the Premier League.
Neither of those situations really work for a sport with promotion/relegation as far as I can see.
StillBluessinceHydeRoad
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2020
- Messages
- 2,457
- Team supported
- City
The PL (and UEFA) have fiddled around now for ten years with their financial regulations, but at long last the PL seems to have hit on regulations which will make our American owners feel well and truly at home. We have lurched from fines to points deductions via related party agreements, FMV and "associated" parties. One club has threatened legal action over associated parties and more could follow if a points deduction leads to relegation. The writs will fly in true American style and BBC will start a "Suit of the Day" highlights programme.
Now however we move into the era of the luxury tax. Don't get it wrong - it is not a fine. Don't think it is aimed at stopping clubs spending. Don't think its advocates actually have any clear idea of what its for! Honest gov, it's not because points deductions are only because owners can afford to pay fines which are said to be to protect the sustainability of their clubs (at present by relegating them?). Bemusing. This should really get the writs flying!
I'm simply pointing out that football finance is actually still regulated by the law (not by PL regulations). The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (which has not been repealed and is still in force in the UK) states:
1. The following shall be seen as incompatible with the internal market: all agreements between undertakings, decisions by associations of undertakings and concerted practices which may affect trade between Member States and which have as their object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition within the internal market, and in particular those which:
limit or control production, markets, technical development, or investment;
I think the PL would have a problem proving the luxury task was not an attempt to limit spending by levying a fine, and it would only take one owner who finds he is being priced out of the market to go to court for the whole PSR set up to come crashing down ...
Now however we move into the era of the luxury tax. Don't get it wrong - it is not a fine. Don't think it is aimed at stopping clubs spending. Don't think its advocates actually have any clear idea of what its for! Honest gov, it's not because points deductions are only because owners can afford to pay fines which are said to be to protect the sustainability of their clubs (at present by relegating them?). Bemusing. This should really get the writs flying!
I'm simply pointing out that football finance is actually still regulated by the law (not by PL regulations). The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (which has not been repealed and is still in force in the UK) states:
1. The following shall be seen as incompatible with the internal market: all agreements between undertakings, decisions by associations of undertakings and concerted practices which may affect trade between Member States and which have as their object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition within the internal market, and in particular those which:
limit or control production, markets, technical development, or investment;
I think the PL would have a problem proving the luxury task was not an attempt to limit spending by levying a fine, and it would only take one owner who finds he is being priced out of the market to go to court for the whole PSR set up to come crashing down ...
cheekybids
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 12,927
Fuccckkk meeee….
stonerblue
Well-Known Member
Now thats newsBillionaire Joe Lewis, whose family trust owns Tottenham Hotspur football club, was fined $5m (£4m) Thursday, but will avoid prison after pleading guilty to insider trading.
This is the story of how his plan to enrich his lovers, friends, and employees unravelled.
Joe Lewis: How one of Britain's richest people broke insider trading laws
The 87-year-old - whose family trust owns Tottenham Hotspur - gave secret stock tips to his girlfriend and employees.www.bbc.co.uk
The NBA salary cap is like the NFL's - it's based a percentage of the league's total revenue about 50%, I think the NFL's is ~60%.
The salary floor (minium spend) is 90% of the salary cap.
No one is suggesting using a salary cap in the Premier league, they're suggesting borrowing the idea of what happens when you break the salary cap and applying that to breaking the spending limit in the PL.
So just like now in the Premier League, Burnely get to spend 70% of Burnley's revenue, Villa get to spend 70% of Villa's revenue.
Ah I see! Theyre bases on a % of the leagues revenue, so they (theoretically) go up over time
edit: Domalino explained it far better than me
Boo or Boo-urns
Well-Known Member
gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
I love it when you talk dirty, SR x
Just so I understand this. You are saying the PL is all fair and a lovely set of rules voted by all for all to help everyone equally, has been ruined by City coming in and systematically cheating and breaking the rules for over a decade, while depriving United Liverpool and Arsenal of 7 titles between them. And your proof is, they have only won the one, so all of the above must be true?
Nope, I never said a word of that.
I said the Premier League is a collective of 20 companies each looking out for their own interests and doing so incredibly successfully, and that anyone who thinks 1 club is being singled out by the other 19 (or a subdivision therein) and is using the proposal of rules that woud benefit City and do net harm to the "cartel" to convince themselves of that is a conspiracy wack job.
Or they are but keep getting there a just a bit too late.
I know you didn't.
I was just doing what you were doing over the last dozen of pages i.e straw manning. It is annoying as fuck, isn't it?
No, you can't be good at stopping someone and also be always too late to stop them.
You can't have it both ways. If they're always too late then they're not very good at coming up with rules to stop us, just like @citizen_maine said.