dadnlad
Well-Known Member
didnt know gill or parry smoked
every day's a school day
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
New PL financial controls | Clubs agree squad spending cap 'in principle'
- Thread starter law74
- Start date
every day's a school day
If it's based on TV money, then it doesn't matter who comes up. The lowest place team will get a set amount regardless, give or take a few million based on how much they're shown on TV.
A year? To change contracts that in a certain club's case still have seven years to run? The main issue with all of this is the constant changing and then expecting clubs to adapt their long-term plans to the whims of regulators that seem to change every couple of years. That was the whole BS around our first FFP failure, with UEFA deciding that these rules apply even to contracts signed before the regulations came in. No team can build a squad if you're constantly changing the rules under which they have to operate. If you want financial rules, fine. Draw them up properly. Give people at least 3 years to prepare for them. Don't introduce something you've come up with on the back of a fag packet and then change it again next season when you realise it isn't working.
I don't think Barcelona are an example for anyone, to be honest.
It’s not just based on tv money (what it’s based on has not been voted on) one proposal is all spending, one is just tv.
A year? To change contracts that in a certain club's case still have seven years to run? The main issue with all of this is the constant changing and then expecting clubs to adapt their long-term plans to the whims of regulators that seem to change every couple of years.
A year is more than enough time to know how much you’re allowed to spend. I know that because every club in Europe has managed it since FFP came into play in 2013 - this is no different to adjusting net spend based on the previous years revenue.
Having wages, spending and agents fees all in the assessment doesn’t mean you have to change contracts last minute, it means you have 3 streams of spending to balance, which all businesses are managing anyway. If your contracts are worth X you can spend Y on the rest.
You’re pretending this is going to be hard when adjusting incomings and outgoings year to year is about as basic as business management gets.
Also you say the main issue is the rules keep changing but they haven’t changed for 10 years.
How does it stifle competition?
I've posted before or in the PL charges thread.
City have voted against it.
They obviously think it isn't a good idea for the club.
halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 11,629
It’s not just based on tv money (what it’s based on has not been voted on) one proposal is all spending, one is just tv.
? Everyone is quoting lowest PL broadcast income as the anchor, 4.5 or 5 times? Or have I missed something?
Could change I suppose.
I’ve already explained the pros of it. You are the one declaring it will be a shit show and kill the premier league and the only explanation you had was players would go to Spain…because you didn’t know Spain already have a stricter system than this.
If you’re going to keep asserting it’ll be a disaster you need to actually be able to come up with a reason why.
City have voted against it. They obviously disagree with you too. Or are they wrong?
No other industry except every other sport on the planet, which all have their own financial controls.
I'm also not sure how this is damaging the league. They've clearly decided that the competitiveness of the PL is it's key differentiator compared to Spain, Germany etc. so they've taken a step which ensures that stays no matter how big the top clubs grow, the bottom clubs in the league will stay competitive and preserve the top to bottom "anyone can beat anyone" thing the PL has been selling to become the biggest league in football.
Top 4 want to spend more? Make sure the lower table clubs are growing too.
All clubs vote for self interest! Clubs who voted against it want to spend as much as they can not be told how much! This influence is the American based owners mainly they hate spending money they live a dividend though! At least Ratcliffe can see what's best for the premier! Because am sure if it was just the glazers at the rags they'd of voted for it..
All clubs vote for self interest! Clubs who voted against it want to spend as much as they can not be told how much! This influence is the American based owners mainly they hate spending money they live a dividend though! At least Ratcliffe can see what's best for the premier! Because am sure if it was just the glazers at the rags they'd of voted for it..
The Glazers are the ones who get to vote, they’re the controlling party.
The fact Newcastle voted for this and Chelsea and United voted against should be enough to show this isn’t a topic that’s being split down American/Middle East grounds.
All clubs do vote for their own interest, but this has 17/19 clubs voting together so clearly teams from all different financial backgrounds support it.
sir baconface
Well-Known Member
The way I heard it reported was that wage bill would be capped at a maximum % of the club’s TV revenue. I could be wrong and know it’s subject to consultation and fine tuning BUT …that could hurt City and could also put English clubs at a disadvantage in Europe.
To me it sounds totally arbitrary and another restriction in trade.
At this moment in time I understand City, rags and Villa are the three clubs opposing it proceeding to the next stage.
To me it sounds totally arbitrary and another restriction in trade.
At this moment in time I understand City, rags and Villa are the three clubs opposing it proceeding to the next stage.