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

[Bazzmand Show]

You're assuming this means it raises the level of competition, whereas it would stifle the level of competition.

How does it stifle competition?

 

[abu13]

And just how does debt get taken into account on these new rules?

As an example, say Forest stop up this season.
If I am understanding these new rules correctly they could go out and saddle the club with debt that they cant afford to service but keep within the new restrictions.

The fact it might drive them out of business altogether is another point I guess but surely there has to be other controls or else sustainability just goes out of the window.

 

[halfcenturyup]

No, from what we know there is no limit on salary spread across the squad so PL clubs can still match anyone but they’d have to offset a mega earner with ‘low’ earners, dare I say it, academy graduates…

If you can find a mega-earner who is tempted to play in a team of academy graduates.

I don't have much faith in the PL implementing anything, no matter how well-intentioned, without fucking it up, tbh. Never mind, I will be dead before the PL fucks itself up big time and I will have had the best football years of my life in the last ten years bar (almost) none. So I will die happy :)

 

[Bazzmand Show]

Turkeys voting for Christmas again!So does this mean it would be pointless for us to carry on selling our academy graduates each summer,as net spend would be taken out of the equation?I probably shouldn’t comment until I’ve a better understanding of the proposals but it’s f’kin nonsense isn’t it!?The best players will all end up in Saudi,playing in front of crowds of five thousand,for a million a week!Are they really that f’kin stupid!

Won't happen.

 

[argyle]

You still haven’t even attempted to explain how it will stifle competition.

And please don’t tell me everyone will go to Spain or Germany again when they’ve got more strict caps that this.

You're the one in favour of this. You explain how tying the top to the bottom will improve things for a club like City?

I know the theory is that it will level the playing field but you're assuming that the bottom clubs revenues will rise and therefore the standard of football. Whereas it will stifle the top teams.

 

[I'm With Stupid]

Remember we would have known where the limit would be as soon as Luton confirmed their promotion.

So we had from June 2023 to June 2024 to plan for the limit changing and our wages going up. We will just have to balance that going forward like the club balance net spend for FFP. Every club in Europe is going to be doing this.

If it's based on TV money, then it doesn't matter who comes up. The lowest place team will get a set amount regardless, give or take a few million based on how much they're shown on TV.

Might get rid of huge bonuses, but like I said in the comment above, clubs have a years worth of time to get their ducks in a row. You can sell more, spend less, pay agents less, structure contracts differently.

A year? To change contracts that in a certain club's case still have seven years to run? The main issue with all of this is the constant changing and then expecting clubs to adapt their long-term plans to the whims of regulators that seem to change every couple of years. That was the whole BS around our first FFP failure, with UEFA deciding that these rules apply even to contracts signed before the regulations came in. No team can build a squad if you're constantly changing the rules under which they have to operate. If you want financial rules, fine. Draw them up properly. Give people at least 3 years to prepare for them. Don't introduce something you've come up with on the back of a fag packet and then change it again next season when you realise it isn't working.

La Liga is already operating a similar system and clubs like Barcelona have shown it’s still very flexible if you need to fuck about to lower your cap.

I don't think Barcelona are an example for anyone, to be honest.

 

[PeterBarnesShorts]

Won't happen.

Wouldn’t be that sure,didn’t they say that about the golfers?

 

[BlueMonkey79]

It's like the Premier league actually want the top teams in the division to fuck off and form their own league.

Totally absurd idea.

 

[domalino]

You're the one in favour of this. You explain how tying the top to the bottom will improve things for a club like City?

I know the theory is that it will level the playing field but you're assuming that the bottom clubs revenues will rise and therefore the standard of football. Whereas it will stifle the top teams.

I’ve already explained the pros of it. You are the one declaring it will be a shit show and kill the premier league and the only explanation you had was players would go to Spain…because you didn’t know Spain already have a stricter system than this.

If you’re going to keep asserting it’ll be a disaster you need to actually be able to come up with a reason why.

 

[Iassel]

If you can find a mega-earner who is tempted to play in a team of academy graduates.

Quite, there zero chance a superstar like Erling Haaland would ever play alongside academy graduates like Oscar Bobb and Rico Lewis on 20x their earnings.

 

[dadnlad]

If it's based on TV money, then it doesn't matter who comes up. The lowest place team will get a set amount regardless, give or take a few million based on how much they're shown on TV.


A year? To change contracts that in a certain club's case still have seven years to run? The main issue with all of this is the constant changing and then expecting clubs to adapt their long-term plans to the whims of regulators that seem to change every couple of years. That was the whole BS around our first FFP failure, with UEFA deciding that these rules apply even to contracts signed before the regulations came in. No team can build a squad if you're constantly changing the rules under which they have to operate. If you want financial rules, fine. Draw them up properly. Give people at least 3 years to prepare for them. Don't introduce something you've come up with on the back of a fag packet and then change it again next season when you realise it isn't working.


I don't think Barcelona are an example for anyone, to be honest.

didnt know gill or parry smoked
every day's a school day

 

[domalino]

If it's based on TV money, then it doesn't matter who comes up. The lowest place team will get a set amount regardless, give or take a few million based on how much they're shown on TV.


A year? To change contracts that in a certain club's case still have seven years to run? The main issue with all of this is the constant changing and then expecting clubs to adapt their long-term plans to the whims of regulators that seem to change every couple of years. That was the whole BS around our first FFP failure, with UEFA deciding that these rules apply even to contracts signed before the regulations came in. No team can build a squad if you're constantly changing the rules under which they have to operate. If you want financial rules, fine. Draw them up properly. Give people at least 3 years to prepare for them. Don't introduce something you've come up with on the back of a fag packet and then change it again next season when you realise it isn't working.


I don't think Barcelona are an example for anyone, to be honest.

It’s not just based on tv money (what it’s based on has not been voted on) one proposal is all spending, one is just tv.

A year? To change contracts that in a certain club's case still have seven years to run? The main issue with all of this is the constant changing and then expecting clubs to adapt their long-term plans to the whims of regulators that seem to change every couple of years.

A year is more than enough time to know how much you’re allowed to spend. I know that because every club in Europe has managed it since FFP came into play in 2013 - this is no different to adjusting net spend based on the previous years revenue.

Having wages, spending and agents fees all in the assessment doesn’t mean you have to change contracts last minute, it means you have 3 streams of spending to balance, which all businesses are managing anyway. If your contracts are worth X you can spend Y on the rest.

You’re pretending this is going to be hard when adjusting incomings and outgoings year to year is about as basic as business management gets.

Also you say the main issue is the rules keep changing but they haven’t changed for 10 years.

 

[argyle]

How does it stifle competition?

I've posted before or in the PL charges thread.

City have voted against it.

They obviously think it isn't a good idea for the club.

 

[halfcenturyup]

It’s not just based on tv money (what it’s based on has not been voted on) one proposal is all spending, one is just tv.

? Everyone is quoting lowest PL broadcast income as the anchor, 4.5 or 5 times? Or have I missed something?

Could change I suppose.

 

[argyle]

I’ve already explained the pros of it. You are the one declaring it will be a shit show and kill the premier league and the only explanation you had was players would go to Spain…because you didn’t know Spain already have a stricter system than this.

If you’re going to keep asserting it’ll be a disaster you need to actually be able to come up with a reason why.

City have voted against it. They obviously disagree with you too. Or are they wrong?

 

[waspish]

No other industry except every other sport on the planet, which all have their own financial controls.

I'm also not sure how this is damaging the league. They've clearly decided that the competitiveness of the PL is it's key differentiator compared to Spain, Germany etc. so they've taken a step which ensures that stays no matter how big the top clubs grow, the bottom clubs in the league will stay competitive and preserve the top to bottom "anyone can beat anyone" thing the PL has been selling to become the biggest league in football.

Top 4 want to spend more? Make sure the lower table clubs are growing too.

All clubs vote for self interest! Clubs who voted against it want to spend as much as they can not be told how much! This influence is the American based owners mainly they hate spending money they live a dividend though! At least Ratcliffe can see what's best for the premier! Because am sure if it was just the glazers at the rags they'd of voted for it..

 

[argyle]

Fully agree.

 

[domalino]

All clubs vote for self interest! Clubs who voted against it want to spend as much as they can not be told how much! This influence is the American based owners mainly they hate spending money they live a dividend though! At least Ratcliffe can see what's best for the premier! Because am sure if it was just the glazers at the rags they'd of voted for it..

The Glazers are the ones who get to vote, they’re the controlling party.

The fact Newcastle voted for this and Chelsea and United voted against should be enough to show this isn’t a topic that’s being split down American/Middle East grounds.

All clubs do vote for their own interest, but this has 17/19 clubs voting together so clearly teams from all different financial backgrounds support it.

 

[sir baconface]

The way I heard it reported was that wage bill would be capped at a maximum % of the club’s TV revenue. I could be wrong and know it’s subject to consultation and fine tuning BUT …that could hurt City and could also put English clubs at a disadvantage in Europe.

To me it sounds totally arbitrary and another restriction in trade.

At this moment in time I understand City, rags and Villa are the three clubs opposing it proceeding to the next stage.

 

[GSW Blue]

What are Newcastle thinking by voting for this?