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

[domalino]

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 .

Sorry is there supposed to be a point or a question in there?

 

[give it to gordon]

Really don't understand the need for change. FFP works fine, after all City are fighting 115 charges




;)

 

[PeterBarnesShorts]

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?

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!..

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

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.

 

[exiled-blue]

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.

 

[At-Swim-Two-Birds]

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.

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.

 

[bluenova]

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.

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).

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

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.

 

[ChicagoBlue]

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)

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.

 

[Xhavenjoe]

Small cock syndrome is cured by a keyboard or so some people think.

On your advice, I've just ordered a large keyboard from Amazon.
Didn't bother with the computer.

 

[s1ty m]

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.