New PL financial controls | Clubs agree squad spending cap 'in principle'

waspish said:
Don't you think with our club voting against it tells you it not right?
Click to expand...

Do you think the club was right to increase season ticket prices every year?

If not, then you are, like me, living in a world where not everything the board of MCFC does is right purely because they do it.

So why would you assume the rules must be wrong because City voted against them?

Form your own opinion on something, don’t just blindly assume half a dozen people you’ve probably never met are making the right choices by default because they’re wearing City lapel pin.
 
Semper aggressus said:
Shit idea. Needs fucking off before it begins.

Not out fault if Sheffield Utd and Burnley are shit, or Chelsea poorly run. You reap what you so, they need to man up and deal with it, fucking whinging set of cunts.

We need to go out and spend £500m on young star players in summer before all these shit arbitrary rules can come into force.
Click to expand...

Yep

smaller clubs equals fewer fans turn up to watch them, It is not the bigger clubs' fault that they have a bigger fan base because they are from a bigger City or Town,

Why not Ban fans from other countries and towns or cities watching United or Liverpool in stead of their local teams
 
Gorbachev said:
What many don't recognise in the PL is that from the 16 years going from 92 to 08 when we were bought out, there was 4 different league winners, since our buyout there have been 5 different winners in the 16 years since 08, there could be 6 if Arsenal win it.

There is nothing wrong with the competitiveness in the PL. We are on dynasty mode at the moment like United was in the 90s, but it won't last forever. I am pretty sure when Pep leaves there will be a slump.

Why all of a sudden are all these laws being put in place because fans of other leagues think there is not competition anymore?
Click to expand...
Crystal Carrington likes this.
 
domalino said:
Do you think the club was right to increase season ticket prices every year?

If not, then you are, like me, living in a world where not everything the board of MCFC does is right purely because they do it.

So why would you assume the rules must be wrong because City voted against them?

Form your own opinion on something, don’t just blindly assume half a dozen people you’ve probably never met are making the right choices by default.
Click to expand...
That's sophism. The club acted in what it considered to be its best interests in both cases. You can agree or disagree with either decision.
 
So, we will have Wirtz on loan from Melbourne City paying half his wages…

It seems a sound idea idealistically. As we’ve shown, we’re the best because we spend our money better than everyone else.

If this continues, then no scheme will harm us much. Everybody’s cloth will be cut similarly.
 
At-Swim-Two-Birds said:
That's sophism. The club acted in what it considered to be its best interests in both cases. You can agree or disagree with either decision.
Click to expand...

Yes, but what you can’t do is say “the club says this is right so it’s right” and then disagree with half the clubs decisions.

If your only reasoning for the club being right is the club is always right, which is waspishs position, then you have to agree with every decision.
 
Survival of the fittest replaced by survival for all, i fail to see how this helps english football progress if anything i see it as more stagnating measure.
 
We will have to see what the cap is, but at first glance a 4.5x cap would mean City would have to cut spending, while virtually all the other clubs can increase their spending. A 5x cap would mean City basically having to stand still financially but virtually every other club can increase spending even further?

Also how are we supposed to factor bonus payments into the equation if we are successful? Large bonus payments could take us over the cap, so we would need to leave a large amount of wiggle room, or cut bonus payments for success substantially in future contracts?
 
domalino said:
Do you think the club was right to increase season ticket prices every year?

If not, then you are, like me, living in a world where not everything the board of MCFC does is right purely because they do it.

So why would you assume the rules must be wrong because City voted against them?

Form your own opinion on something, don’t just blindly assume half a dozen people you’ve probably never met are making the right choices by default because they’re wearing City lapel pin.
Click to expand...

Because the evidence of the continual changes to the rules since they came in in 2013/14 tell us the reason. Remember when they first came in there was a rule to curb wages! We know it was taken out by Gill no one in the media reported it or was told why it was taken out!
 
waspish said:
Because the evidence of the continual changes to the rules since they came in in 2013/14 tell us the reason.
Click to expand...

There were zero changes to the rules from 2010-2023. It’s been the same basic FFP model allowing 30m losses per season all the way through.
 
“We don’t know the ins and outs of what the spend cap will include but our understanding is that the amount that is allowed to be spent is likely to be on player wages, amortisation and agent fees,” said Davis.

“That will be a fixed total based on the lowest amount of broadcasting money received in the Premier League, so whatever is earned by the 20th club. Over the last few years that has basically meant approximately £100m-worth of broadcasting income, that is what the likes of Sheffield United will earn.

“The spend cap will be a hard multiple, and the rumoured amount is five times that amount, which would basically mean a spend cap of approximately £500m.

“From a good perspective, that will open up the likes of Aston Villa and Newcastle to spend more than what they currently have because under the current regulations it is tied to their own revenues.

“It would also mean under a new regulation, teams like Nottingham Forest could spend what they want to spend, or claim they need to spend, to stay competitive.

“A potential negative is that spending will increase in the Premier League to potentially unsustainable levels.

"The danger is that by saying you are able to spend more, it could be interpreted as you must spend more to remain competitive. We could potentially see more and more clubs pushing to breaking point.”

www.bbc.co.uk

Premier League spending cap: Clubs vote in favour of developing plans

Premier League clubs vote in favour of developing plans to introduce a spending cap in England's top flight.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk
 
jrb said:
From a good perspective, that will open up the likes of Aston Villa and Newcastle to spend more than what they currently have because under the current regulations it is tied to their own revenues.
Click to expand...

I’m pretty sure one of these 2 journalists is confused because they think it allows Villa to spend the same as United, and that’s not what anyone else has reported

The 85% limit on each clubs spending is already voted through. This is a separate cap linking the max spending of the richest club to the revenue of the poorest club in order to stop the gap from top to bottom growing too big.

Maybe they are right but none of their colleagues across the profession are suggesting having a hard cap of 550m will allow Villa to spend 550m and ignore the existing PSR rules.
 
domalino said:
Thanks, im glad you agree with me for once.
Click to expand...
our owner has invested in the club,took him 10/15 years to increase the value of the club from 300m to billions,we have got into the position where we can buy who we need within reason to improve our chance to win things earning more money and carry on investing,but you think its a good idea to throw that away,and base his investment on what sheff united earn x whatever

you mr @domalino are one of my favourite posters on bluemoon, always seem to have a well informed view, however i cant help think that if the general consensus was it was a great idea you would have a very well informed argument against it
 
Sir peace frog said:
our owner has invested in the club,took him 10/15 years to increase the value of the club from 300m to billions,we have got into the position where we can buy who we need within reason to improve our chance to win things earning more money and carry on investing,but you think its a good idea to throw that away,and base his investment on what sheff united earn x whatever
Click to expand...

Do you think a league where the bottom clubs have budgets of 20m and the top clubs spend 900m every year would be a fun league to watch?

I think it would be shit. It already exists and is called Ligue 1.

Turns out having the best teams in a league spending 40x the bottom teams just makes the football shit, and when the financial disparity is closer, the games are more competitive.

So this proposal tethers the top and bottom together so they never get too far apart. If the big clubs want to keep increasing spending by 10% a year, then they can! As long as the league as a whole is growing too, so TV payments and central income is growing.
 
Last edited:
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