PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[eastlandsblue]

As I understand it, and someone will possibly have more knowledge on this, as an example a team like say Newcastle who’s turnover was about 250m it helps them as if the TV revenues of the bottom club is 100m and it’s x 5 that means potentially Newcastle have up to 250m whereby sale of players would be an advantage.

In our case our turnover is 700m plus but we’re restricted to 500m so any player profits are irrelevant.

Chelsea will need to sell to balance this years PSR rules, the changes won’t affect the end of season sales.

Surely player sales will reduce the wage bill. If rumours of City being after both Guimaraes and Paqueta then they’ll have to reduce that bill

 

[Sir Joe Aguero]

As I understand it, and someone will possibly have more knowledge on this, as an example a team like say Newcastle who’s turnover was about 250m it helps them as if the TV revenues of the bottom club is 100m and it’s x 5 that means potentially Newcastle have up to 250m whereby sale of players would be an advantage.

In our case our turnover is 700m plus but we’re restricted to 500m so any player profits are irrelevant.

Chelsea will need to sell to balance this years PSR rules, the changes won’t affect the end of season sales.

It’s such a stupid rule, all it does is push the price up for average players, does nothing to stop clubs getting in silly debt and stops any competition in the championship.

 

[feedmpenzaandhewillscore]

Surely player sales will reduce the wage bill. If rumours of City being after both Guimaraes and Paqueta then they’ll have to reduce that bill

That’s probably the bit they haven’t thought about is what the players and PFA will make of it as this will result in wages reducing if so. There will be a legal challenge from that aspect, it’s another shit idea from the Premier league with a lot of holes in it that will unravel like the current rules are when it’s worked in real world scenarios they haven’t accounted for.

 

[hammocity]

Surely player sales will reduce the wage bill. If rumours of City being after both Guimaraes and Paqueta then they’ll have to reduce that bill

Yes of course, it reduces the wage bill but generally each team has a squad of 25 senior players so if Newcastle sold those two they’d have to replace them or operate with a weakened numerical squad.

 

[blue b4 the moon]

Wages taken into account?

Great if like 95% of teams you can plan a year ahead with no worries about trophy bonus payments but....well you all know the rest.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

Wages taken into account?

Great if like 95% of teams you can plan a year ahead with no worries about trophy bonus payments but....well you all know the rest.

Imagine teams having to throw cup finals to adhere to PSR!

 

[blue b4 the moon]

Imagine teams having to throw cup finals to adhere to FSP!

Yeah that's where I was heading.

I'm hoping that this early vote is 'in principal' and when there's some meat on the bones enough owners outside the American cartel ones can see it for what it is.

 

[slbsn]

You had him on the run @projectriver :-).
He didn’t have answers to your points and could only try shouting over you. Kieran didn’t have a point to prove re City so he’s a safer option

Cheers. Suspect I will go on in the future. But we’ll see

 

[The Light Was Yellow Sir]

As I understand it, and someone will possibly have more knowledge on this, as an example a team like say Newcastle who’s turnover was about 250m it helps them as if the TV revenues of the bottom club is 100m and it’s x 5 that means potentially Newcastle have up to 250m whereby sale of players would be an advantage.

In our case our turnover is 700m plus but we’re restricted to 500m so any player profits are irrelevant.

Chelsea will need to sell to balance this years PSR rules, the changes won’t affect the end of season sales.

That’s not right. If Newcastle have a turnover of £250M and are not in Europe, they can spend £187.5M (85% of turnover). If they’re in Europe it’s reduced to 70% of turnover as that turnover is expected to rise, due to being in Europe.

Not sure what happens if you’re in Europe one season, out the next, back in and back out……….

 

[Rory Bluelow]

You had him on the run @projectriver :-).
He didn’t have answers to your points and could only try shouting over you. Kieran didn’t have a point to prove re City so he’s a safer option.

Maguire’s very good…he’s probably my second favourite expert !

 

[hammocity]

That’s not right. If Newcastle have a turnover of £250M and are not in Europe, they can spend £187.5M (85% of turnover). If they’re in Europe it’s reduced to 70% of turnover as that turnover is expected to rise, due to being in Europe.

Not sure what happens if you’re in Europe one season, out the next, back in and back out……….

I agree with your assessment on the 85% but was trying to say if Newcastle sold 2 players for say 200m then that revenue could be included in total revenues up to the value of 5 x the bottom clubs TV revenue. The 70% in Europe applies from 25/26, think the coming season is 80%.

It’s all adding to the confusion but the bottom line in the PL is no club will be able to spend more than 500m per annum regardless of any income above that.

 

[Holcombe bloo]

Some of the biggest losers here will be Academies like ours, there’s no point trying to develop young players, the majority of them who won’t make it at top flight level. The payback for investment in Academies is future sales of a few players to lower league clubs to offset the cost of developing all the players within the set up.

There’s plenty who don’t make it but they have at least been given a chance to fulfil their dreams with fantastic coaching and education.

These new rules will have the effect of driving down transfer fees at all levels, probably making Academies to potentially run at a loss. However if a player like Cole Palmer is sold for big money it’ll still add to revenue but that money will not be able to be reinvested on an alternative player.

As a consequence of this bullshit player fees will plummet in the next few seasons, will drive down the quality of the PL and Europes elite will benefit, they must be pissing their sides watching the most successful domestic league in the world tearing itself apart.

It’s on a par with Gerald Ratner’s famous off the cuff comment:

“How can Ratner’s sell jewellery so cheap?”

Gerald

“Because it’s all crap”

Ratners didn’t last long after that.

Disagree. The academy will be needed more to produce player for our team as our budget will be slightly less when wages and amortisation agents fee all added up.

if we sell any academy players there will be a profit for the sheikh on any income rather than it ploughed back into the budget for signing new players.

Though you would hope that ticket prices would stabilise if the top end of income doesn’t matter too much. Having slightly cheaper admission might help get more noisy supportive working class fans in the ground. Not the worse thing.

Even though I don’t like the anchoring idea, city still have plenty of competitive advantages, these measures are just a reducer between the top club and the bottom ones.

interesting bit will be the Anchoring ratio 4.5 or less would be bad 5 plus and really it’s business as usual for us as far as I can see

 

[Bluewonder]

It would be best if the PL had no restrictions whatsoever.

The clubs at the top would he necessarily restricted by UEFA's regulations which would ultimately act as an anchor in preventing absurdity that might theoretically be brought about by, say, PIF/ Newcastle spending.

The clubs not in Europe would then have a slightly better chance at catching up but would ultimately would be tempered by UEFA's regulations.

 

[BringBackSwales]

Presumably the uefa regulations won’t apply to Bankruptelona?

 

[hammocity]

Disagree. The academy will be needed more to produce player for our team as our budget will be slightly less when wages and amortisation agents fee all added up.

if we sell any academy players there will be a profit for the sheikh on any income rather than it ploughed back into the budget for signing new players.

Though you would hope that ticket prices would stabilise if the top end of income doesn’t matter too much. Having slightly cheaper admission might help get more noisy supportive working class fans in the ground. Not the worse thing.

Even though I don’t like the anchoring idea, city still have plenty of competitive advantages, these measures are just a reducer between the top club and the bottom ones.

interesting bit will be the Anchoring ratio 4.5 or less would be bad 5 plus and really it’s business as usual for us as far as I can see

So you think a 200m hole in spending ability is business as usual?

 

[moggymoz]

If 14 voted for it that must include arsenal and pool musn't it

Who the fuck are 'pool'

 

[hammocity]

That’s not right. If Newcastle have a turnover of £250M and are not in Europe, they can spend £187.5M (85% of turnover). If they’re in Europe it’s reduced to 70% of turnover as that turnover is expected to rise, due to being in Europe.

Not sure what happens if you’re in Europe one season, out the next, back in and back out……….

Btw, 85% of 250 is 212.50 :-)

 

[John Wayne]

It would be best if the PL had no restrictions whatsoever.

The clubs at the top would he necessarily restricted by UEFA's regulations which would ultimately act as an anchor in preventing absurdity that might theoretically be brought about by, say, PIF/ Newcastle spending.

The clubs not in Europe would then have a slightly better chance at catching up but would ultimately would be tempered by UEFA's regulations.

I see your point - a two-tiered spending restriction, ie domestic and European, is fraught with difficulties. What happens if a team qualifies for Europe for the first time, has to pay contractual bonuses as a result, then misses out on Europe the following campaign? How can the club be expected to monitor their spend to turnover ratio in a two-tier system when so much is uncertain in football?

The proposed rules seem to once again only benefit the few. By anchoring spend to the bottom club's TV revenue, you'd think that it might make things more egalitarian, however, the 85% rule crushes any ambitions from would-be interlopers. If you're Liverpool or Arsenal, you therefore need not worry about anyone else sneaking up behind you. At the other end, it prevents the very big revenue generators (the Manchester clubs) from staying ahead of you by limiting their investment.

These rules are clearly intended to protect the interests of some of the top clubs both from above them and below.

 

[JewelZee]

Who the fuck are 'pool'

Cess?

 

[Holcombe bloo]

So you think a 200m hole in spending ability is business as usual?

if our current wages are 450 inc all bonus, player amortisation about 135 and agents say 20m

I think if a ratio of 5 = approx 520m spend on players so not great
5.5 about 575 so not much short of current spend and ratio of 6 is business as usual. I am against the proposal overall as it limits owner investment, im sure the sheikh would rather determine when he does or doesn’t invest all profits into the club rather than it be decided by this means. But we might not have much of a choice if it’s what 16 clubs want to do.

My real point was about the academy to get our above figures down a bit, and we have the best academy facility in world football.