No, because all that is going to happen, is that TV subscriptions are going up, to ensure more TV money comes in. This will ensure the Premier League clubs can still outspend the rest of Europe. It will make our league more competitive imo. But, it will be the arm chair fans that will be funding it.Probably already been mentioned, and hopefully not a daft question. But could this move bring down the current ludicrous transfer fees?
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.
If Kieran Maguire is correct then why did Liverpool and Arsenal vote in favour?Almost, but This is being brought in alongside the 85% rule. Not instead. At least that’s what the Times exclusive and BBC radio are saying.
So you can still only spend 85% of revenue, but if your revenue is £1Bn, you can’t spend £850m (85%), you can only spend 6x* the revenue** of the poorest club. Which last year was £520m or so.
The aim is to stop the gap between the top CL clubs and the bottom 8 growing. It will force the top 6 to keep sharing all the TV and PL commercial money, because the bottom clubs revenues have to grow for the top clubs to keep spending more and more.
Kieran Maguire just said on 5Live that it’s come from the bottom 14 clubs, so they’re the ones after it.
*The exact multiplier isn’t known. 4.5, 5 and 6 have all been rumoured.
**What revenue isn’t set either, it could be total revenue or it could be just their central payments revenue (TV and prize money and PL commercial deals).
No, because all that is going to happen, is that TV subscriptions are going up, to ensure more TV money comes in. This will ensure the Premier League clubs can still outspend the rest of Europe. It will make our league more competitive imo. But, it will be the arm chair fans that will be funding it.
If Kieran Maguire is correct then why did Liverpool and Arsenal vote in favour?
What happens when Sky re-negotiate and their deal comes down significantly? I’m guessing the clubs will have to look at increasing the season ticket prices.
We’ve already seen how their latest deal was lower than the previous one. May have achieved more money but on a game by game basis my understanding is it was lower.
I’m not sure what the answer is to be fair. Then again, I don’t know what the question is!!
I would suggest that he doesn't know what he is talking about. City, United, Liverpool, Chelsea, Spurs and Arsenal are in the top 10 European clubs by turnover. That is not to say they are all in similar positions financially or in footballing terms. As ever to understand the individual thought processes you need to follow the money.He said it might be part of broader negotiations around the June meeting, where the top 6 will have things they want to vote through, or just because they know they’re never going to be the top spending clubs in the league.
Fair point. It's not life or death but football in the end.Other football leagues and sports around the world.
I'm not disagreeing with your stance btw, just answering your question.