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

Sir peace frog said:
what is fair about our owners investing millions to create the club we are today then being told you cant spend unless its linked to sheff united's earnings.

it would be fun to drive to sharston tip in jeff bezos ferrari, but he invested his money i pissed mine up the wall, i dont think when im queuing to get into the tip, this isnt fair jeffs queuing up at monaco tip in the sunshine, sorry we don't live in disneyland where everything is fair and equal, come on i thought you were more serious than that .
Click to expand...

Sorry is there supposed to be a point or a question in there?
 
J.G.Blue. said:
To be honest I dont really understand these new regulations (seems to be new ones made up every other week) but I cant help wondering where was all this shit when the rags were buying the best players and winning the league nearly every season?
Click to expand...
Indeed,I don’t remember the term anti competitive when that lot were dipping their bread!I’d bet that if they had won the seven prem titles,instead of City,to go with their other thirteen,they still wouldn’t be using the term,and nor would they have dreamt up ffp,or whatever they want to f’kin call it lately!..
 
While the exact details are seemingly still to be worked out, I really can't see what this spending cap is meant to achieve.

It's not about sustainability (not that PSR was ever about sustainability) if clubs like Luton or Sheffield United could spend £500m regardless of where the money came from. Same for the mid-table clubs. It's not about competitiveness as it still favours the CL clubs, who have significant additional income from broadcasting and commercial revenue they can spend. The risk appears to be that clubs just above mid-table may be tempted to spend beyond their means to try to get top 4 or Europa League spots, or the clubs facing relegation who could be tempted to spend beyons their means just to stay up.

And five times the bottom club's TV income seems a very arbitrary measure to me. Why not just say £500m? Like my company's HR team, with out new 'job architecture', they don't seem to have thought it through very well.
 
Only read a few posts on here, but my take on it is this.

Every club gets to be able to spend 5 or 6x what the lowest club earns in TV money. So at present 500-600m.

That would significantly improve what 70% of clubs could spend. The only ones affected negatively are the likes of us with large revenue and can spend heavy anyway.

The issue then comes that if, say Wolves can spend 500m, if they are not generating that much revenue, it's going to put them in the red and possibly in financial trouble, which I thought was what they were trying to avoid.

Unless there is a bit I haven't read that somehow limits spending to below the above figure.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
While the exact details are seemingly still to be worked out, I really can't see what this spending cap is meant to achieve.

It's not about sustainability (not that PSR was ever about sustainability) if clubs like Luton or Sheffield United could spend £500m regardless of where the money came from. Same for the mid-table clubs. It's not about competitiveness as it still favours the CL clubs, who have significant additional income from broadcasting and commercial revenue they can spend. The risk appears to be that clubs just above mid-table may be tempted to spend beyond their means to try to get top 4 or Europa League spots, or the clubs facing relegation who could be tempted to spend beyons their means just to stay up.

And five times the bottom club's TV income seems a very arbitrary measure to me. Why not just say £500m? Like my company's HR team, with out new 'job architecture', they don't seem to have thought it through very well.
Click to expand...
As you say we need to see the detail. I speculate but it is not difficult to see Liverpool and Arsenal as the main architects of the proposed regs. Even if that is wrong, they voted in favour. The question is how would the new regs benefit them over those who voted against including ourselves. Back to my first sentence.
 
exiled-blue said:
Only read a few posts on here, but my take on it is this.

Every club gets to be able to spend 5 or 6x what the lowest club earns in TV money. So at present 500-600m.

That would significantly improve what 70% of clubs could spend. The only ones affected negatively are the likes of us with large revenue and can spend heavy anyway.

The issue then comes that if, say Wolves can spend 500m, if they are not generating that much revenue, it's going to put them in the red and possibly in financial trouble, which I thought was what they were trying to avoid.

Unless there is a bit I haven't read that somehow limits spending to below the above figure.
Click to expand...

I think they've already agreed on a cap based on the individual club's income.

If you're in Europe, you need to follow the rule where your player costs are less than 70% of revenue.

Just in the PL, but not in Europe, then the limit is 85% (although there was a suggestion they'd gradually move to 70%, and given how many clubs are in Europe now, that probably makes some sense).

www.theguardian.com

Premier League clubs agree to cap spending on players as part of PSR reform

Premier League clubs have voted unanimously to adopt rules that will cap spending on players, as part of a reform of controversial profitability and sustainability rules
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com

So Wolves can't spend more than they earn, but this new rule will in a very small way stop the very top clubs from getting richer and richer. I can't see it makes much difference myself, as any kind of 4, 5 or 6x limit is similar to what we have now, and that's already ridiculously uneven. No-one outside the rich six can realistically compete, and this rule keeps it that way. Unless the plan is to gradually reduce the multiplier, but I doubt that Liverpool, Arsenal or Spurs actually want to be closer to the teams below.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
While the exact details are seemingly still to be worked out, I really can't see what this spending cap is meant to achieve.

It's not about sustainability (not that PSR was ever about sustainability)
Click to expand...
Code: Broken.

What began as a veiled attempt at “financial controls” disguised as an almost closed door to protect the biggest clubs, has now morphed into the next phase of what the American owners of PL teams want…salary caps, with the excess revenues of success on and off the field “not allowed” to be spent on improving the product, thus siphoned off into the billionaire owners’ pockets.

There is a phrase in American business, “Capitalism for the gains, but socialize the losses.” Sounds like the American owners are starting to flex their Billion dollar muscles and change the “democratic” landscape of British football to serve their own parochial, and ultimately financial, interests.
 
New FFP rules. Honestly, it just repeats itself. Sky Sports, trying to explain it...'For example, if we pluck a name out of the air...Manchester City...'. No shit, Sky.

Look, these 115 fabrications will be dismissed soon, everyone and his dog can see that. No? Lol. Fine. So now what? It's called 'anchoring', apparently. Ergo, you may spend a multiple based upon what the bottom team earns in revenue. Lol. Ever heard of anywhere that ties itself to the worst performer? And when our teams fail repeatedly in Europe? Uh huh.

Morons. The PL is a bag of dicks. Let's talk Superleague, please do. I'm more than happy with moving on from the shitter that is the PL.

Oh, 3 teams voted against:

City. They don't trust the PL. They hate them. They see them as amateurs. City are the best run club in the history of football in England... it's one of the reasons why we win. The other? Pep.

The Rags. Self-appointed biggest club on Earth. They are not. Factoid. However, even the rats can smell a rat.

Villa. Lol. Ambitious Yank owners fancy their chances.

All it tells me is that the 115 are getting dismissed imminently, for the shit show they are...so, let's try something else to help the Cartel clubs.

Oh, Chelsea abstained. A club that is more PSG than any I can think of...a very British Faberge Egg.
 
Wretched Vengeance said:
Probably already been mentioned, and hopefully not a daft question. But could this move bring down the current ludicrous transfer fees?
Click to expand...
No, because all that is going to happen, is that TV subscriptions are going up, to ensure more TV money comes in. This will ensure the Premier League clubs can still outspend the rest of Europe. It will make our league more competitive imo. But, it will be the arm chair fans that will be funding it.
 
exiled-blue said:
Only read a few posts on here, but my take on it is this.

Every club gets to be able to spend 5 or 6x what the lowest club earns in TV money. So at present 500-600m.

That would significantly improve what 70% of clubs could spend. The only ones affected negatively are the likes of us with large revenue and can spend heavy anyway.

The issue then comes that if, say Wolves can spend 500m, if they are not generating that much revenue, it's going to put them in the red and possibly in financial trouble, which I thought was what they were trying to avoid.

Unless there is a bit I haven't read that somehow limits spending to below the above figure.
Click to expand...

Almost, but This is being brought in alongside the 85% rule. Not instead. At least that’s what the Times exclusive and BBC radio are saying.

So you can still only spend 85% of revenue, but if your revenue is £1Bn, you can’t spend £850m (85%), you can only spend 6x* the revenue** of the poorest club. Which last year was £520m or so.

The aim is to stop the gap between the top CL clubs and the bottom 8 growing. It will force the top 6 to keep sharing all the TV and PL commercial money, because the bottom clubs revenues have to grow for the top clubs to keep spending more and more.

Kieran Maguire just said on 5Live that it’s come from the bottom 14 clubs, so they’re the ones after it.


*The exact multiplier isn’t known. 4.5, 5 and 6 have all been rumoured.

**What revenue isn’t set either, it could be total revenue or it could be just their central payments revenue (TV and prize money and PL commercial deals).
 
As a city fan you are against any restrictions because our owner is rich af & he wants to invest in football/entertainment.

But i kinda support restrictions that could benefit the academy players & is stopping the inflationary prices for medicore players on the transfer market.
 
What happens when Sky re-negotiate and their deal comes down significantly? I’m guessing the clubs will have to look at increasing the season ticket prices.

We’ve already seen how their latest deal was lower than the previous one. May have achieved more money but on a game by game basis my understanding is it was lower.

I’m not sure what the answer is to be fair. Then again, I don’t know what the question is!!
 
domalino said:
Almost, but This is being brought in alongside the 85% rule. Not instead. At least that’s what the Times exclusive and BBC radio are saying.

So you can still only spend 85% of revenue, but if your revenue is £1Bn, you can’t spend £850m (85%), you can only spend 6x* the revenue** of the poorest club. Which last year was £520m or so.

The aim is to stop the gap between the top CL clubs and the bottom 8 growing. It will force the top 6 to keep sharing all the TV and PL commercial money, because the bottom clubs revenues have to grow for the top clubs to keep spending more and more.

Kieran Maguire just said on 5Live that it’s come from the bottom 14 clubs, so they’re the ones after it.


*The exact multiplier isn’t known. 4.5, 5 and 6 have all been rumoured.

**What revenue isn’t set either, it could be total revenue or it could be just their central payments revenue (TV and prize money and PL commercial deals).
Click to expand...
If Kieran Maguire is correct then why did Liverpool and Arsenal vote in favour?
 
Nightmare Walking said:
No, because all that is going to happen, is that TV subscriptions are going up, to ensure more TV money comes in. This will ensure the Premier League clubs can still outspend the rest of Europe. It will make our league more competitive imo. But, it will be the arm chair fans that will be funding it.
Click to expand...

Many thanks.
 
At-Swim-Two-Birds said:
If Kieran Maguire is correct then why did Liverpool and Arsenal vote in favour?
Click to expand...

He said it might be part of broader negotiations around the June meeting, where the top 6 will have things they want to vote through, or just because they know they’re never going to be the top spending clubs in the league.
 
The exact opposite will happen. It looks like allowed spending will be linked to TV income, not overall revenue. Sky will have to stump up more. If not, the Premier League will go it alone, without a broadcaster.
MikeF said:
What happens when Sky re-negotiate and their deal comes down significantly? I’m guessing the clubs will have to look at increasing the season ticket prices.

We’ve already seen how their latest deal was lower than the previous one. May have achieved more money but on a game by game basis my understanding is it was lower.

I’m not sure what the answer is to be fair. Then again, I don’t know what the question is!!
Click to expand...
 
domalino said:
He said it might be part of broader negotiations around the June meeting, where the top 6 will have things they want to vote through, or just because they know they’re never going to be the top spending clubs in the league.
Click to expand...
I would suggest that he doesn't know what he is talking about. City, United, Liverpool, Chelsea, Spurs and Arsenal are in the top 10 European clubs by turnover. That is not to say they are all in similar positions financially or in footballing terms. As ever to understand the individual thought processes you need to follow the money.
 
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