LangleyBlue1970
Well-Known Member
Too right. If you’ve got it, spend it. If you’ve not, wait until a kind sheikh comes along and then have the time of your life.
Too simple to be true.
How Would YOU Design Football Finance Law?
- Thread starter Citizen Green
- Start date
Too simple to be true.
IMO there should be seperate sets of rules/policies
1. Financial policy enforcement to stop owners/administrators destroying clubs - e.g. have to have enough confidence in revenue to pay for all contracts and anyone owed money. These policies should not have anything to do with competitiveness of the competition.
2. Fair Play policies to stop the most powerful building monopolies, e.g. if a club wins 2 titles in a row then they can't register more than X new players or have to play more home developed players. Or a grading of the number of players that can join based on the previous year's final standings. These policies should have nothing to do with finance.
3. Greater good policies, e.g. maximum profit on fans, minimum standards for facilities, health and saftery of players and fans, inclusion, diversity, youth level, mental health, etc. Nothing to do with competition or finance. Maybe this ais all funded by a "tax on all club profits".
4. Inflation policies to stop the never ending increase in football costs. Maybe this means limits on wages, incentives, agent costs, marketing, etc. Again these would be to protect the game and not to give anyone an advantage. these could put the league at a disadvantage but so what. The English Premier League should be protecting the English Clubs - not competing with other leagues. IMO at least.
1. Financial policy enforcement to stop owners/administrators destroying clubs - e.g. have to have enough confidence in revenue to pay for all contracts and anyone owed money. These policies should not have anything to do with competitiveness of the competition.
2. Fair Play policies to stop the most powerful building monopolies, e.g. if a club wins 2 titles in a row then they can't register more than X new players or have to play more home developed players. Or a grading of the number of players that can join based on the previous year's final standings. These policies should have nothing to do with finance.
3. Greater good policies, e.g. maximum profit on fans, minimum standards for facilities, health and saftery of players and fans, inclusion, diversity, youth level, mental health, etc. Nothing to do with competition or finance. Maybe this ais all funded by a "tax on all club profits".
4. Inflation policies to stop the never ending increase in football costs. Maybe this means limits on wages, incentives, agent costs, marketing, etc. Again these would be to protect the game and not to give anyone an advantage. these could put the league at a disadvantage but so what. The English Premier League should be protecting the English Clubs - not competing with other leagues. IMO at least.
Scoople
Well-Known Member
For Premier League clubs. Give each club a rating based on income/Debt as we hear financial institutes carry out for nations. if the club falls below a certain standard then they have a year to correct it. If that still doesn't work then limits on spending are put on place until the situation improves.
For lower league clubs put a 50p levy on every ticket across the divisions and if a club goes bust use that money to buy the club and create a community owned club advised by the FA or League.
For lower league clubs put a 50p levy on every ticket across the divisions and if a club goes bust use that money to buy the club and create a community owned club advised by the FA or League.
LeonardoDaVnci
Well-Known Member
Every club, every transfer window has the same maximum net spend and for all age groups, nominal example £100m. Limits are set by AGM on April 1st.
Every club has the same 1st team squad salary cap eg only, £200m per FY.
Every club can only register 20 players over 21 on August 31st, Jan 31st. U21 no restrictions.
Every club has same max limit of debt that can NOT be exceeded eg £100m for 3 consecutive months. Go over the debt limit and net spend limit on transfers becomes £0 in the following window.
So let's say eg one year Birmingham Ciry or Fulham's owners wanted to splash £100m net in a window then let them do it. No more of this cartel clubs have a right to outspend everyone else because of their pure historic organic growth bull shit.
Every club has the same 1st team squad salary cap eg only, £200m per FY.
Every club can only register 20 players over 21 on August 31st, Jan 31st. U21 no restrictions.
Every club has same max limit of debt that can NOT be exceeded eg £100m for 3 consecutive months. Go over the debt limit and net spend limit on transfers becomes £0 in the following window.
So let's say eg one year Birmingham Ciry or Fulham's owners wanted to splash £100m net in a window then let them do it. No more of this cartel clubs have a right to outspend everyone else because of their pure historic organic growth bull shit.
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
Now i've got some free time, I can answer this fully.
As with anything you're trying to find a solution for, the first thing to do is enunciate the problem cogently. I've seen so many projects fail because that's not been done.
I'd suggest there are two main problems:
PSR was completely useless for this, as was FFP to a large degree, as I've said previously. What happened 3 years ago is of minuscule relevance compared to what is likely to happen in the next 12-24 months. I've used our example back in 2008, where we'd easily have met FFP/PSR on June 30th but could have easily gone into administration two weeks later. A system that can't protect against this sort of scenario just isn't worth having.
I'd be much more concerned about cash flow and how future liabilities becoming due for payment might affect that. This is essentially what La Liga do, ensuring clubs like Barca can't overcommit to spending they won't be able to sustain. Pre-ADUG, John Wardle and David Makin were having to put in cash to supplement our working capital. That sort of thing, rather than the bottom line, should be a red flag. Obviously overdue liabilities to HMRC, other clubs, players or suppliers should also be a red flag (and they are currently).
Longer-term debt is obviously another liability that needs to be carefully managed. Im not just saying this because it's united's problem but leveraged buyouts should be a complete no-no. If owners want to take on debt to buy clubs, that should be entirely on their shoulders. Debt incurred for infrastructure is another matter. As long as there's a coherent plan to pay off the debt, without risk to the club, then that should be allowed, but maybe with an upper limit, either an absolute amount, one relative to turnover, or based on another formula (such as interest as a percentage of revenue).
Every club has a PL share, and if owners aren't seen to be acting in their club's best interests then the PL should have the power to take over that share and appoint an independent team to run the club, and be able to sell it if necessary.
2. Fair competition
The question here is, what is "fair"? Should there be a more level financial playing field for clubs, so that any team could potentially win the title?
If so then you have to adopt a more American, NFL-type model where key commercial deals (including broadcasting, kit & merchandise) are negotiated centrally and distributed evenly, along with a return to sharing ticket revenue. Each NFL team earned just over $400m in 2023 from central funds. The vast majority of NFL franchises have revenue in the $500m-600m range, with four in the $600-700m range and only one (the Dallas Cowboys) with more than that. The Chiefs, the most successful team over the last few seasons, are very much mid table in terms of revenue.
Clubs could be allowed to negotiate some deals of their own and keep some individual revenue streams but their ability to use these to gain competitive advantage could be restricted by player cost caps. There should also be a minimum player cost level, so clubs can't underspend either. Clubs in Europe could have those limits adjusted up.
Or do you keep the existing model of centrally distributed TV revenue but a free-for-all for all other types? What is "fair" in that case? The proposed Player Cost rules means that smaller clubs will find it more difficult to compete against the likes. of us or Liverpool, although you could impose a maximum absolute limit on these regardless of club revenue, which might negate some of the advantage enjoyed by the wealthier clubs.
One 'hidden' advantage that we enjoy is that our owner pays for infrastructure investment, whereas Spurs have had to find external funding, or divert working capital they could potentially spend on their squad. Perhaps clubs like us should have a notional interest charge expense imposed, or be forced to repay the owner on commercial terms.
In summary, there are things the PL can do to better assure financial stability but it needs to decide what a level playing field should look like.
As with anything you're trying to find a solution for, the first thing to do is enunciate the problem cogently. I've seen so many projects fail because that's not been done.
I'd suggest there are two main problems:
- Financial stability
- Ensuring fair competition as far as possible.
PSR was completely useless for this, as was FFP to a large degree, as I've said previously. What happened 3 years ago is of minuscule relevance compared to what is likely to happen in the next 12-24 months. I've used our example back in 2008, where we'd easily have met FFP/PSR on June 30th but could have easily gone into administration two weeks later. A system that can't protect against this sort of scenario just isn't worth having.
I'd be much more concerned about cash flow and how future liabilities becoming due for payment might affect that. This is essentially what La Liga do, ensuring clubs like Barca can't overcommit to spending they won't be able to sustain. Pre-ADUG, John Wardle and David Makin were having to put in cash to supplement our working capital. That sort of thing, rather than the bottom line, should be a red flag. Obviously overdue liabilities to HMRC, other clubs, players or suppliers should also be a red flag (and they are currently).
Longer-term debt is obviously another liability that needs to be carefully managed. Im not just saying this because it's united's problem but leveraged buyouts should be a complete no-no. If owners want to take on debt to buy clubs, that should be entirely on their shoulders. Debt incurred for infrastructure is another matter. As long as there's a coherent plan to pay off the debt, without risk to the club, then that should be allowed, but maybe with an upper limit, either an absolute amount, one relative to turnover, or based on another formula (such as interest as a percentage of revenue).
Every club has a PL share, and if owners aren't seen to be acting in their club's best interests then the PL should have the power to take over that share and appoint an independent team to run the club, and be able to sell it if necessary.
2. Fair competition
The question here is, what is "fair"? Should there be a more level financial playing field for clubs, so that any team could potentially win the title?
If so then you have to adopt a more American, NFL-type model where key commercial deals (including broadcasting, kit & merchandise) are negotiated centrally and distributed evenly, along with a return to sharing ticket revenue. Each NFL team earned just over $400m in 2023 from central funds. The vast majority of NFL franchises have revenue in the $500m-600m range, with four in the $600-700m range and only one (the Dallas Cowboys) with more than that. The Chiefs, the most successful team over the last few seasons, are very much mid table in terms of revenue.
Clubs could be allowed to negotiate some deals of their own and keep some individual revenue streams but their ability to use these to gain competitive advantage could be restricted by player cost caps. There should also be a minimum player cost level, so clubs can't underspend either. Clubs in Europe could have those limits adjusted up.
Or do you keep the existing model of centrally distributed TV revenue but a free-for-all for all other types? What is "fair" in that case? The proposed Player Cost rules means that smaller clubs will find it more difficult to compete against the likes. of us or Liverpool, although you could impose a maximum absolute limit on these regardless of club revenue, which might negate some of the advantage enjoyed by the wealthier clubs.
One 'hidden' advantage that we enjoy is that our owner pays for infrastructure investment, whereas Spurs have had to find external funding, or divert working capital they could potentially spend on their squad. Perhaps clubs like us should have a notional interest charge expense imposed, or be forced to repay the owner on commercial terms.
In summary, there are things the PL can do to better assure financial stability but it needs to decide what a level playing field should look like.
abu13
Well-Known Member
I would bring in a requirement to be debt free within 10 years, each club should have to show a minimum of 10% debt reduction every year.
jimharri
Moderator
If you've got it, flaunt it.....
dickie davies
Well-Known Member
It's protection for the club's land/stadium that's required
In reality the funds a club get from being in the champions league and doing well mean that whatever rules are in place about profits or spending % of revenue etc those in the competition will have an advantage of higher income to pay higher wages and sign the best players
The current rules just stop clubs investing to get in the champ league and earn their chance of getting the extra revenue
Historically no rules were needed as clubs change managers or make bad purchases so someone else takes there place at the top of the game
The key metric should be to ensure clubs are only allowed a certain level of debt as ultimately that causes clubs to go under usually owing HMRC
We all know the current rules are stop City rules from the cartel and in prior years some clubs that sided with them ie Villa Newcastle etc are now finding the rules working against them
It will need a proper debate and planning if they wish to introduce something rather than the idiotic changes we have seen in recent years that has led to the stupidity we see now with clubs selling each other homegrown players to get round rules
The current rules just stop clubs investing to get in the champ league and earn their chance of getting the extra revenue
Historically no rules were needed as clubs change managers or make bad purchases so someone else takes there place at the top of the game
The key metric should be to ensure clubs are only allowed a certain level of debt as ultimately that causes clubs to go under usually owing HMRC
We all know the current rules are stop City rules from the cartel and in prior years some clubs that sided with them ie Villa Newcastle etc are now finding the rules working against them
It will need a proper debate and planning if they wish to introduce something rather than the idiotic changes we have seen in recent years that has led to the stupidity we see now with clubs selling each other homegrown players to get round rules
Stephen230
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 1 Apr 2022
- Messages
- 7,430
- Team supported
- MCFC
Either no restrictions. Or the same restrictions for everyone.
Things are loaded enough in the ‘big’ clubs favour naturally, without the current state of affairs which gives them greater spending power than the rest.
Things are loaded enough in the ‘big’ clubs favour naturally, without the current state of affairs which gives them greater spending power than the rest.