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

[domalino]

I like the proposal personally. Means the “bigger” clubs can’t just chuck money around until they get it right. Seems a fair system and the better run clubs will benefit

All this does is tie the growth of the top Premier League clubs to the growth of the bottom ones. The only way for Chelsea, City, United to spend more is to make the 20th team's revenue grow.

Which means that if the PL invests in growing the lower end of the table clubs, they will kick on and get further away from the rest of Europe as all 20 PL clubs will soon end up in the top 25 clubs in Europe for revenue and therefor spending power.

If they ignore the bottom clubs, the cap will start to limit the top clubs growth and that will help the big European clubs catch up.

It doesn't remove any competetive advantage or allow Spain/Germany to steal players or catch up because they already have their own spending controls which are more strict than this. It doesn't limit how much anyone is spending now because the cap is already way above everyone's current spending.

 

[BerkshireBlue]

I wonder if they've actually been clever this time and put in writing the punishment you'll get if you break the rule or have they left it open ended like thick fuckers they are. I'm hoping that they've introduced the luxury tax thing that was talked about which should cover it

 

[Blue Smarties]

Need Luton fucking off for the likes of Leeds and Sunderland.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Interesting that they chose 85% instead of UEFA's 70% limit. Wonder which PL team would be over 70%?

Having seen BlueCityBrain's breakdown of the 2023 accounts for all PL clubs last season, it's only Brighton, us and Spurs who come in under the 70% mark. Liverpool, united, Arsenal & Chelsea all above that.

 

[gaz76]

And what happens to the money the clubs earn above the cap? Does it just go into a rainy day fund or perhaps towards the directors end of season party?

 

[argyle]

The bottom club shouldn't be City's responsibility.

In the long term it will restrict the top clubs because of what the incompetent clubs do.

 

[I'm Blue]

Newcastle's commercial revenues will not allow them to spend to the cap for probably 10 years.

FFP came in 2013, so Newcastle are probably thinking that by 2035 when they've grown their revenues to be competitive this rule will be reassessed.

Until then, it keeps them closer to the clubs they're trying to overtake.

I wouldn’t have expected owners as rich as them to have any patience in terms of anyone telling them what they can and can’t spend.
I guess I just find their stance strange.
Though that might change when the next vote comes around.
Seen quite a few comments from Newcastle fans with the opinion that these new rules are just another way of holding them back.

 

[domalino]

The bottom club shouldn't be City's responsibility.

In the long term it will restrict the top clubs because of what the incompetent clubs do.

People like you would have said the same when the TV deals were done and pushed for the top clubs to get all the TV money like in Spain.

But 20 years on, the PL's equal TV distribution and Spain's shit one is often cited as the reason one league is so much more successful. To the point where Spain finally had to bite the bullet and copy the PL for domestic TV deals at least.

It's about understanding that the growth of the league as a whole benefits everyone individually.

 

[bluemoon32]

And what happens to the money the clubs earn above the cap? Does it just go into a rainy day fund or perhaps towards the directors end of season party?

Pfft, cheaper season tickets obviously...

 

[mattcity5]

So a fire sale for City and United is now needed. Who will be culled?

Why needed?