How Would YOU Design Football Finance Law?

[Citizen Green]

I think we can all agree the current iteration of 'PSR' is nothing more than a poorly designed, protective sets of rules that stifle outside investment & protect the old establish order from 'new' money, much like it's predecessor FFP. I have no doubt that if this isn't completely reworked we will see the downfall of the Premier League as the leading world football competition within the next 5 years.

So with that said, I'd be interested to get others views on how they would implement a financial system, that is fair to all, protecting clubs health & being welcoming to outside investment. Now, I do get the argument that some no system at all in place would be at unfair disadvantage as clubs with benefactors who have endless cash could simply keep buying players, regardless of performance, with no real threat to the financial health of the club, until they get it right. Some clubs medium to short-term financial health is dependent on getting their signings right - literally shit or bust. On the other side of the spectrum is we can't have rules that simply maintain an established order from any sustained threat to their revenues (through CL qualification et al.) such as those in place, clearly dictated by the likes of Arsenal, Liverpool & United.

The rules imo need to include the following:
- The safeguarding of a clubs financial health.
- Competitive fairness regardless of club 'size or history'.
- No deterrence to outside investment.
- A system that is flexible & nonrestrictive.
- Governed by an independent regulator.

But how to design/implement it?

What say you?

 

[mexico1970]

I would make it the wild west, we live in a capitalist society open the saloon doors and plough away.

If City overspent and they bombed out of the leagues (We know all about that) I would still follow them.

What exactly are the rules for? Who are rules designed to protect?

 

[Sheikh rattle and roll]

I think we can all agree the current iteration of 'PSR' is nothing more than a poorly designed, protective sets of rules that stifle outside investment & protect the old establish order from 'new' money, much like it's predecessor FFP. I have no doubt that if this isn't completely reworked we will see the downfall of the Premier League as the leading world football competition within the next 5 years.

So with that said, I'd be interested to get others views on how they would implement a financial system, that is fair to all, protecting clubs health & being welcoming to outside investment. Now, I do get the argument that some no system at all in place would be at unfair disadvantage as clubs with benefactors who have endless cash could simply keep buying players, regardless of performance, with no real threat to the financial health of the club, until they get it right. Some clubs medium to short-term financial health is dependent on getting their signings right - literally shit or bust. On the other side of the spectrum is we can't have rules that simply maintain an established order from any sustained threat to their revenues (through CL qualification et al.) such as those in place, clearly dictated by the likes of Arsenal, Liverpool & United.

The rules imo need to include the following:
- The safeguarding of a clubs financial health.
- Competitive fairness regardless of club 'size or history'.
- No deterrence to outside investment.
- A system that is flexible & nonrestrictive.
- Governed by an independent regulator.

But how to design/implement it?

What say you?

You can’t unless is done globally because if you place too many restrictions upon the PL players will go to Spain etc etc

 

[Stoned Rose]

Doesn’t need rules, other than a limit on debt.

They’re all big boys let them crack on.

 

[The Stockport Iniesta]

Might as well just have the same rules as uefa, it's absolutely pointless having 2 sets of rules, other than keeping the oiks in their place.

 

[youngbob]

No rules except for when it's obvious that an owner is taking a club down the shitter. Just use a bit of fucking common sense - stop wronguns taking over our regional institutions and we'll be reet. If it's obvious that a couple of Yanks are gouging a club like Everton or Southampton for profit and putting nothing back into the infrastructure/team, chuck 'em out. Get the police involved if needed.

Should also be the case if it looks like an owner is massively overspending money they don't personally have and is gambling the future of the club they're in charge of, relying on prospective revenues to cover up personal debts. Stuff like that should be considered an actual crime. Football clubs should be protected by proper law, not these wishy washy rules that achieve fuck all.

 

[CC1]

I think we can all agree the current iteration of 'PSR' is nothing more than a poorly designed, protective sets of rules that stifle outside investment & protect the old establish order from 'new' money, much like it's predecessor FFP. I have no doubt that if this isn't completely reworked we will see the downfall of the Premier League as the leading world football competition within the next 5 years.

So with that said, I'd be interested to get others views on how they would implement a financial system, that is fair to all, protecting clubs health & being welcoming to outside investment. Now, I do get the argument that some no system at all in place would be at unfair disadvantage as clubs with benefactors who have endless cash could simply keep buying players, regardless of performance, with no real threat to the financial health of the club, until they get it right. Some clubs medium to short-term financial health is dependent on getting their signings right - literally shit or bust. On the other side of the spectrum is we can't have rules that simply maintain an established order from any sustained threat to their revenues (through CL qualification et al.) such as those in place, clearly dictated by the likes of Arsenal, Liverpool & United.

The rules imo need to include the following:
- The safeguarding of a clubs financial health.
- Competitive fairness regardless of club 'size or history'.
- No deterrence to outside investment.
- A system that is flexible & nonrestrictive.
- Governed by an independent regulator.

But how to design/implement it?

What say you?

Simple. - no debt

 

[Cobwebcat]

I think we can all agree the current iteration of 'PSR' is nothing more than a poorly designed, protective sets of rules that stifle outside investment & protect the old establish order from 'new' money, much like it's predecessor FFP. I have no doubt that if this isn't completely reworked we will see the downfall of the Premier League as the leading world football competition within the next 5 years.

So with that said, I'd be interested to get others views on how they would implement a financial system, that is fair to all, protecting clubs health & being welcoming to outside investment. Now, I do get the argument that some no system at all in place would be at unfair disadvantage as clubs with benefactors who have endless cash could simply keep buying players, regardless of performance, with no real threat to the financial health of the club, until they get it right. Some clubs medium to short-term financial health is dependent on getting their signings right - literally shit or bust. On the other side of the spectrum is we can't have rules that simply maintain an established order from any sustained threat to their revenues (through CL qualification et al.) such as those in place, clearly dictated by the likes of Arsenal, Liverpool & United.

The rules imo need to include the following:
- The safeguarding of a clubs financial health.
- Competitive fairness regardless of club 'size or history'.
- No deterrence to outside investment.
- A system that is flexible & nonrestrictive.
- Governed by an independent regulator.

But how to design/implement it?

What say you?

Agree with all that.

Firstly the clubs cannot be trusted to govern the PL as they understandably do what is best for them. That has to go.

There has to be some restriction on debt and a guarantee that all debt be covered if things go wrong.

FFP and PSR have to go.

Investment must be encouraged not stifled.

It should not matter where in the World that investment comes from.

All PL rules must adhere to English law and must not be applied retrospectively.

There has to be some restrictions in order that wages and transfer costs do not spiral out of control with clubs trying to compete with extremely rich owners who can afford huge losses.

This last one is tricky but they can start by admitting that FFP was hijacked by the biggest clubs to entrench their positions forever. This is a cartel in all but name and anti competitive. City and Newcastle are in no danger of going bust.

Maybe a luxury tax that means if a club’s outgoings are in excess of a certain level they have to pay the same excess amount into a pot which funds grass root football.

 

[Hamann Pineapple]

Maximum debt limit across the board for all club in any competition.

 

[give it to gordon]

Let the owner do as he wishes, seems wrong that American owners are doing what they want but non American owners have rules put in the way by American owners

 

[yankblue]

For starters I would fine Liverpool and United into oblivion. Cause fuck'em, that's why

 

[Giovinco]

May not be a popular opinion but I would just leave it down to market forces and the free market.

 

[BlueAnorak]

The only one that would work is a wage cap like in NFL.
The trouble is all the big clubs, mostly red cartel and big London clubs, would object because of their sense of entitlement.
That would mean any Joe could rock up and buy a team and pump in a shedload of cash and complete.
That wouldn't be fair apparantly.

 

[chris85mcfc]

Simple. - no debt

But every business has debt, and will use it to their advantage.

There's nothing wrong with a certain amount of debt as long as the interest cover is over a certain amount.

You could have covenants in place to restrict the amount of debt, but to assume no debt is just fanciful.

 

[mexico1970]

The only one that would work is a wage cap like in NFL.
The trouble is all the big clubs, mostly red cartel and big London clubs, would object because of their sense of entitlement.

I don't believe they care too much about winning, as long as that cash keeps rolling they'll run with it.

Wage caps would mean they would keep more of the money that rolls in.

 

[CC1]

But every business has debt, and will use it to their advantage.

There's nothing wrong with a certain amount of debt as long as the interest cover is over a certain amount.

Can’t go down that road with PL. They’re too happy to be flexible only when it suits. Rules have to be black & white moving forward. Where do you draw the line?

 

[.db.]

At the other end of the scale, I don’t think clubs should have points deductions or fines for going into administration (it’s the fans, players and lowest paid employees who are punished most there). It should be the owners themselves that are punished as individuals or the companies that they own shares through.

 

[bennyboy]

Go for the rags big time over their debt.

 

[BrianW]

There is a limit on debt and a rolling requirement to bring it down to an agreed-upon level within five years.

There are no restrictions on owner investment as long as it is in equity, not loans.

 

[Kompany Car]

Agree a maximum spending threshold which if exceeded you pay a 50% tax for any spending above it, the proceeds of which are redistributed to everyone outside the top 6.

For newly promoted clubs no limit for the first 2 yrs.

It doesn’t stop investment but does penalise excessive spending. It’s also redistributive to clubs with lower incomes, levelling the playing field. It gets rid of some of the “old money clubs” advantage.