You're assuming this means it raises the level of competition, whereas it would stifle the level of competition.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
New PL financial controls | Clubs agree squad spending cap 'in principle'
- Thread starter law74
- Start date
You're assuming this means it raises the level of competition, whereas it would stifle the level of competition.
MafeotulBlue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 3 Aug 2022
- Messages
- 896
- Team supported
- Manchester City
Much like F1’s cost cap which effectively destroyed any chance of competition, this is similar. It’s dressed up to look good for your average fan, propped up to act against the evil brown people and their oil money.
This is a shoot yourself in the foot moment that will be a scandal in 5 years or so.
It locks everyone in a scramble; blocks all talent for the whole of the league, diminishes the need for international broadcasting; and gives the ball back to Italy and Spain, and Germany.
Utter shambles of a decisions, with a ramification that eventually kills a lucrative product.
This is a shoot yourself in the foot moment that will be a scandal in 5 years or so.
It locks everyone in a scramble; blocks all talent for the whole of the league, diminishes the need for international broadcasting; and gives the ball back to Italy and Spain, and Germany.
Utter shambles of a decisions, with a ramification that eventually kills a lucrative product.
Blue Maverick
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 6 Aug 2010
- Messages
- 21,379
City, Villa and scum voted against it Chelsea abstained!
halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 11,629
Unless I’m not understanding,likely, it makes no sense. If clubs that can least afford it can spend over their income and the same as us, how is that stopping them going into massive debt?
Or have I misunderstood?
This anchor scheme isn't about financial sustainability, it's about improving competition. Don't forget this is just a leak by someone with a vested interest in what was leaked. There must surely be a financial sustainability component as well otherwise any club can go into debt to take a shot at the big time.
PeterBarnesShorts
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 5 Jan 2023
- Messages
- 221
- Team supported
- City
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!
And so you see that we're right on the edge. But the stupid thing is that we wouldn't know we were right on the edge until the end of the season when all of these bonuses were activated. But it's also worth mentioning that while we are on the edge, in our most expensive ever season, we're still operating within the proposed rules, which raises the question, what problem are you solving? If it doesn't force us and the other top teams to cut our spending and does nothing to redistribute funding to the lower teams, then what's the point of it? Other than to give some suits something to make themselves feel important?
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.
Yes, that's one factor in a very complicated monitoring of wages, amortisation and loss/profit on sales and squad sizes.
This may do away with the good business practice of tying wages to success, though, because if you have more success than expected, it could throw your squad cost over the limit. No?
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.
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.
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!
No, net spend is still important, they’re just adding wages and agents fees into it so a club can choose to spend their money more flexibly.
Thats PSR. This new vote is to link the maximum spending of the the top club to the revenue of the bottom club, so if the top clubs want to keep growing and spending more they have to bring the bottom clubs up with them so the gap doesn’t grow too big.
You're assuming this means it raises the level of competition, whereas it would stifle the level of competition.
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.
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…Won’t this damage teams going for European glory, they can be outbid by Madrid Bayern etc for the top players?
bluethrunthru
Well-Known Member
at least we won the CL before people decided to hamstring our clubs in future tournaments