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

domalino said:
I’m pretty sure one of these 2 journalists is confused because they think it allows Villa to spend the same as United, and that’s not what anyone else has reported

The 85% limit on each clubs spending is already voted through. This is a separate cap linking the max spending of the richest club to the revenue of the poorest club in order to stop the gap from top to bottom growing too big.

Maybe they are right but none of their colleagues across the profession are suggesting having a hard cap of 550m will allow Villa to spend 550m and ignore the existing PSR rules.
Click to expand...

Have they also got a time machine?
 
Today was merely agreeing to the concept, but the final decision will be in June.
Today three clubs voted against, one abstained, however three of the clubs that supported the concept today won't be at the meeting in June, Leicester and two others will.
Leicester have fallen foul of FFP in the past, so could quite feasibility join us, United and Villa against the idea, if Chelsea the change from abstaining to opposition, it just takes two other clubs, either promoted or a club already in the top flight, to oppose and it falls flat......
 
domalino said:
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.
Click to expand...
What's the mechanism for 'growing the revenue of the whole league' that we're not doing already? We're basically advocating for the same thing, I'm just saying that these sorts of regulations deal with the symptoms rather than the cause. You're basically hoping that the big clubs will get into a situation where they won't be able to spend as much as they want, and then somehow raise the revenues of the lower clubs to facilitate their own spending. Now in theory, that could involve redistributing the TV money more equitably, but I can't imagine many chairman of top clubs wanting to hand over more of their share to teams below them so that they can spend more money.

Or alternative you could make UEFA (and now FIFA) pay a significant portion of the CL and CWC money to individual leagues as solidarity payments, which are then distributed amongst non-qualifying teams, to avoid their competitions ruining every league on the continent. You could massively reduce the merit payments and broadcast payments in the Premier League. The fact that you're on TV more already allows you to charge way more in sponsorships. Why do you also need bonus payments for the fact that you're appearing on TV? If you really wanted to be bold, you could go back to the 'away team gets 20% of gate receipts' that we had for almost all of the 20th century.

Of course, I accept that this scheme is far more likely to get off the ground, so it's better than nothing. But I don't think it'll have a particularly significant impact, because it won't be allowed to. There are too many vested interests in football now.
 
The Stockport Iniesta said:
We will have to see what the cap is, but at first glance a 4.5x cap would mean City would have to cut spending, while virtually all the other clubs can increase their spending. A 5x cap would mean City basically having to stand still financially but virtually every other club can increase spending even further?

Also how are we supposed to factor bonus payments into the equation if we are successful? Large bonus payments could take us over the cap, so we would need to leave a large amount of wiggle room, or cut bonus payments for success substantially in future contracts?
Click to expand...
So last season we win approx 400 million in prize money.
But we can't spend it.
Nice timing
 
I'm With Stupid said:
You're basically hoping that the big clubs will get into a situation where they won't be able to spend as much as they want, and then somehow raise the revenues of the lower clubs to facilitate their own spending. Now in theory, that could involve redistributing the TV money more equitably, but I can't imagine many chairman of top clubs wanting to hand over more of their share to teams below them so that they can spend more money.
Click to expand...

That’s the beauty of the 2/3rds majority isn’t it? Top chairmen have to compromise with the bottom 14.

At the moment the top clubs are constantly trying to grab more of the cake and leave the lower table and lower league clubs with less and less, this will put an end to that because by stealing money from the rest, they’ll just be harming themselves.
 
So in a nutshell, everyone will be allowed to spend x times the revenue of the lowest club, assuming it’s within the allowed % of their turnover?
 
Gorbachev said:
Out of contract would be a good idea actually.. keeps players in the game and would mean an Mbappe for example, as he is out of contract, would have to go to a club that has first dibs on him. i.e a lower team.
Click to expand...
Never happen mate - best will in the world, let's say Mbappe wanted to come to England on a free.

For arguments sake, Middlesbrough have been promoted through the play offs and get first pick.

The only other team that shows interest in him is Chelsea matching the T's & C's.

You are not forcing a multi-millionaire to move to a part of the country that they really don't want to IF they have options.............
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.