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

[bluenova]

I recognise that there is the salary cap too, so it wouldn’t just be £1b difference, I was just mulling over whether it would be a continuing hindrance as the other clubs will still be getting more money,

I’m not sure it’ll have a huge effect anyway. The best teams are the ones best run and with the best managers. Money helps, of course.

I'd agree about being well run, but only within the groupings that already exist. There's no way that any club, outside the big 6, could break into the CL places on a regular basis, just by being well run.

We see teams having the odd good season, but even then they're relying on 2-3 of the bigger clubs having poor seasons at the same time.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

I'd agree about being well run, but only within the groupings that already exist. There's no way that any club, outside the big 6, could break into the CL places on a regular basis, just by being well run.

We see teams having the odd good season, but even then they're relying on 2-3 of the bigger clubs having poor seasons at the same time.

Villa are doing exactly this at the moment.

There’s a top 3, then Villa, Spurs, Rags, Newcastle fighting out the rest with Brighton not too far behind.

Revenue is important, for sure, but it is possible to compete with less, just much harder.

 

[bluenova]

Villa are doing exactly this at the moment.

There’s a top 3, then Villa, Spurs, Rags, Newcastle fighting out the rest with Brighton not too far behind.

Revenue is important, for sure, but it is possible to compete with less, just much harder.

Isn't it more likely that Villa doing what I suggested?

They're having a good season, but they're competing with clubs that have more than double their revenue, and is that ever going to be sustainable. We'd have probably said similar about Newcastle challenging the status quo last year.

After their PL win, Leicester had a few seasons where they nearly made the Champions League again, but they still never got anywhere close to the big six financially. Apart from the Covid season, the closest they got was within about £150m of Arsenal. Arsenal are now pushing further away financially, and I'd expect them to have £250m+ more than anyone outside the big 6 in their next accounts.

 

[dadnlad]

the cartel will be sniffing round villas better players to push them back down

 

[Impeccable One]

The bottom club gets the least amount of TV revenue so it's both!

If United were to finish bottom (oh happy days), I’m pretty sure they would not have received the lowest TV revenue ?

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

Isn't it more likely that Villa doing what I suggested?

They're having a good season, but they're competing with clubs that have more than double their revenue, and is that ever going to be sustainable. We'd have probably said similar about Newcastle challenging the status quo last year.

After their PL win, Leicester had a few seasons where they nearly made the Champions League again, but they still never got anywhere close to the big six financially. Apart from the Covid season, the closest they got was within about £150m of Arsenal. Arsenal are now pushing further away financially, and I'd expect them to have £250m+ more than anyone outside the big 6 in their next accounts.

Time will tell with Villa, but I can see them competing whilst Emery is there.

 

[Impeccable One]

I’m missing some info …

The limit is set at the end of each season for the next season ?

So what if the previous season it was much higher and now clubs have to release players to stay under the limit ?

And, most well run clubs are planning 1, 2 or 3 windows in advance. They can’t do one window if they’re not sure what their limit is ?

 

[halfcenturyup]

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.

Anchoring is pointless if a club can still only spend 85% of its turnover from the point of view of intra-league competition. It doesn't close any gaps at all. It feels a little knee-jerky (as always) due to record squad cost and revenues last year at City as a result of the treble. But that was only temporary.

And it imposes a need for salary restructuring towards fixed contracts that don't reward success (which is counterintuitive). It's a bizarre idea, especially when combined with squad cost and break even rules.

Unless I am missing something.

 

[No One Understands]

So, we will have Wirtz on loan from Melbourne City paying half his wages…

It seems a sound idea idealistically. As we’ve shown, we’re the best because we spend our money better than everyone else.

If this continues, then no scheme will harm us much. Everybody’s cloth will be cut similarly.

Until they change the loaned player rules yet again allowing for only half a player to be on loan to any one club, and since you can't cut up a person in half (without going to prison), that means no more loans.

We can make it interesting and say no loans in or out for top earning clubs, and lower earning clubs must get free loans from the top earners. After all, they are developing the players for the top earners. In fact their squads need to be free and subsidized by the top earners. It's only right.

 

[SWP's back]

If it’s based on 6x the revenue of the bottom club, isn’t it in the bottom club’s best interests not to grow their revenue as the ratio of 6:1 means the more they earn, the top clubs can spend 6 times that?

ie £100m = £600m (£500m difference)
£200m = 1.2b (£1b difference)

It’s 6x the revenue from the bottom clubs tv deal. Not total revenue for a start.