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

[St.Pauli support]

This is exactly the point. You have to start with the 'What', which is the objective you're trying to achieve. Then you work out the 'How'. But it seems the PL really doesn't understand what it's trying to achieve.

That would be a good point for journos surely to ask "what?".

If you guys have media comments in that direction I would be grateful if it's posted/linked on here.

It mainly smells like anti City though, no surprise.

The general problem surely is the fact that prize money goes to successful clubs and that sponsor money goes to successful clubs.
That won't change. We indeed would have to socialize % parts of prize and sponsor revenues to keep competition tighter. Across UK but also across Europe. If that's "what" we want.

 

[Roachy]

There's a lot of pressure from external sources - the EFL, the political sphere etc for the PL to better regulate clubs and their spending. The idea initially was to prevent clubs going bust, but that was just a cover for essentially protecting the historic elite. Now it's all an obsession over profit and loss but doesn't perhaps provide enough mitigation for clubs going up and down the leagues or having external issues and it's creating uncertainty over the actual league table and what it might look like once punishments/appeals have been dealt with.

You've got the wider pyramid struggling to make ends meet whilst the PL clubs, particularly at the top, are pulling further and further away.

The caps elsewhere in Europe and with UEFA are stricter so the PL shouldn't decline. But it depends whether the product remains as attractive. If things are impacted and revenues drop so will the amount the clubs can spend and it will lead to a decline in the future. Right now that's not a risk, but we'll see how long it lasts.

In rugby it's not had any benefit. You've even got English players who sacrifice an international career to go and make money abroad. Similarly with cricket. Again, not a risk currently in England but again perhaps in the future.

Ok, maybe it's a "devil in the detail" situation then in relation to the impact on certain clubs, although we're aware of the basic concept as it stands now.

 

[Nightmare Walking]

Turn it around and anchor it to the revenue of the richest club.
Allow the clubs owners to invest up to what the highest revenue is. Therefore, the likes of Newcastle could have their owners invest to match up with anyone. Owners are allowed to invest as long as they are not loading debt onto the club.
This opens the door to outside investment and means no team can drastically outspend anyone else.

 

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

Why does Chitty Chitty Bang Bang spring to mind ;-)

The Pep Piper of the PL?

 

[BlueRain]

As much as the idea may or may not about levelling the playing field the whole concept of anchoring is just dumb...

If a team wins loads of stuff and get's loads of prize money then what can they spend it on if not their squad? A Corgi Trouser Press?
I'm sorry but the best players want to play for the best clubs because:

a) they win stuff
b) they get paid more

and why shouldn't they???

I think there should be a fairer way of splitting money accross PL clubs and even down to the lower leagues but capping spending isn't the way to do it. It will weaken the PL teams and the league.

There is even the arguement that if a club owner wants to commit financial suicide then he probably has the right to do so... No need for any PL involvement in a clubs finances

 

[waspish]

So how did even get to a vote if it was Arsenal who wanted this? You look at Arsenal this will give 200m more to spend if it gets voted through! Why can't some come up with let's scrap it all will they vote on this? Will it even get a vote..

 

[Plays By Sense Of Smell]

As much as the idea may or may not about levelling the playing field the whole concept of anchoring is just dumb...

If a team wins loads of stuff and get's loads of prize money then what can they spend it on if not their squad? A Corgi Trouser Press?
I'm sorry but the best players want to play for the best clubs because:

a) they win stuff
b) they get paid more

and why shouldn't they???

I think there should be a fairer way of splitting money accross PL clubs and even down to the lower leagues but capping spending isn't the way to do it. It will weaken the PL teams and the league.

There is even the arguement that if a club owner wants to commit financial suicide then he probably has the right to do so... No need for any PL involvement in a clubs finances

This all over.
Chelsea have taken a risk with their stupidly long contracts on so many young players, the majority of whom they hope will develop...and it's entirely their risk to take.

Innthe same way that Ange's crazy all out attack is Spurs's risk to take.

 

[No One Understands]

Oh my god this is literally addressing that!

The only way for the top clubs to spend more is to grow the revenue of the whole league so Brighton and Palace have more money, decreasing the resource gap.



Gee, if only someone had a way of making sure the top clubs spending stopped accelerating away from the bottom clubs and making the sport less competitive?

Maybe by…tethering one to the other?



This rule is doing exactly what you claim to want to happen. It even addresses the CWC problem.

How do you grow the revenue of the smallest clubs in one season?

What if these clubs get relegated every season and you have to do the same the next season with a new cast of clubs?

The only thing that makes sense is to just redistribute income differently with more money going to the have nots.

Unfortunately, that would make the league more like an American franchise model, and make it less competitive sporting wise as clubs make more money while doing less.

 

[domalino]

How do you grow the revenue of the smallest clubs in one season?

Incredibly easily, you just grow central commercial deals, prize money and restructure TV payments. Get the bottom 3 an extra £10m and the top clubs can spend £45-60m a year more.

What if these clubs get relegated every season and you have to do the same the next season with a new cast of clubs?

Yes. it's not that hard. It's supposedly going to be based on the centralised revenue, so the amount of money doesn't change no matter who actually finishes 20th.

The only thing that makes sense is to just redistribute income differently with more money going to the have nots.

You're getting it!

Unfortunately, that would make the league more like an American franchise model, and make it less competitive sporting wise as clubs make more money while doing less.

OH! So close. Can you name a single reason why teams being closer together financially would make the sport unompetitive?

 

[No One Understands]

Don't you think with our club voting against it tells you it not right? They have been right all along! Maybe go back to no restrictions? What we had for 150 years. If clubs can't budget sensibly so be it!

Do you really think if there was no restrictions we would go out and spend 500m in a summer? Everything about our club is it to be run right..

I agree with you. If someone decides to run their club into the ground financially, it's not our responsibility to save them from themselves, regardless of how it affects overall competition.

If a club is that valuable to a community, then it will still exist. See Rangers for reference.