PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[halfcenturyup]

If I understand your question - all contracts up to the 100m "soft cap" don't have a luxury tax or multiplier. Any contract that goes over and afterwards does, and theres a multiplier on that specific contract(s).

So say a team is at 95m. They give another contract to a player for 10m. That puts them over the threshold, so that 10m contract and anything after it will have a multiplier attached to it.

Not sure if that answers your question or not let me know!

Sorry, badly phrased. You said there was a soft cap of, say, 100 and a hard cap of 172. I was wondering how the 172 was calculated? Is it a multiple of the floor? For that matter, how is the 100 calculated?

Btw, I love the idea of a salary floor. Poor Luton would be fucked. Shame :)

 

[the-ecstacy-of-eight]

Sorry, badly phrased. You said there was a soft cap of, say, 100 and a hard cap of 172. I was wondering how the 172 was calculated? Is it a multiple of the floor? For that matter, how is the 100 calculated?

Btw, I love the idea of a salary floor. Poor Luton would be fucked. Shame :)

It seems like an even more convoluted and confusing system to me (but maybe that's in design).

Like you, I have so many questions....

Does the floor value change every year depending upon which of the promoted teams has the lowest value squad? Because this simply isn't workable, it's akin to how we were stitched up by UEFA's goalpost moving. Or do teams who, despite winning the championship, have their entry to the Prem. barred because their team value doesn't meet the floor? Because that won't be accepted by any team outside of those already in the Premier League.

Neither of those situations really work for a sport with promotion/relegation as far as I can see.

 

[StillBluessinceHydeRoad]

The PL (and UEFA) have fiddled around now for ten years with their financial regulations, but at long last the PL seems to have hit on regulations which will make our American owners feel well and truly at home. We have lurched from fines to points deductions via related party agreements, FMV and "associated" parties. One club has threatened legal action over associated parties and more could follow if a points deduction leads to relegation. The writs will fly in true American style and BBC will start a "Suit of the Day" highlights programme.

Now however we move into the era of the luxury tax. Don't get it wrong - it is not a fine. Don't think it is aimed at stopping clubs spending. Don't think its advocates actually have any clear idea of what its for! Honest gov, it's not because points deductions are only because owners can afford to pay fines which are said to be to protect the sustainability of their clubs (at present by relegating them?). Bemusing. This should really get the writs flying!

I'm simply pointing out that football finance is actually still regulated by the law (not by PL regulations). The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (which has not been repealed and is still in force in the UK) states:


1. The following shall be seen as incompatible with the internal market: all agreements between undertakings, decisions by associations of undertakings and concerted practices which may affect trade between Member States and which have as their object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition within the internal market, and in particular those which:

limit or control production, markets, technical development, or investment;

I think the PL would have a problem proving the luxury task was not an attempt to limit spending by levying a fine, and it would only take one owner who finds he is being priced out of the market to go to court for the whole PSR set up to come crashing down ...

 

[cheekybids]

Which is all a great theory apart from the fact it (a) didn't stop the new guys becoming good enough and (b) didn't relieve any pressure on the existing teams spending to keep up, United are the highest spending team in the league and they're paying record amounts to do record breakingly bad.

Fuccckkk meeee….

 

[stonerblue]

Billionaire Joe Lewis, whose family trust owns Tottenham Hotspur football club, was fined $5m (£4m) Thursday, but will avoid prison after pleading guilty to insider trading.

This is the story of how his plan to enrich his lovers, friends, and employees unravelled.

Joe Lewis: How one of Britain's richest people broke insider trading laws

The 87-year-old - whose family trust owns Tottenham Hotspur - gave secret stock tips to his girlfriend and employees.

www.bbc.co.uk

Now thats news

 

[domalino]

If I understand your question - all contracts up to the 100m "soft cap" don't have a luxury tax or multiplier. Any contract that goes over and afterwards does, and theres a multiplier on that specific contract(s).

So say a team is at 95m. They give another contract to a player for 10m. That puts them over the threshold, so that 10m contract and anything after it will have a multiplier attached to it.

Not sure if that answers your question or not let me know!

Sorry, badly phrased. You said there was a soft cap of, say, 100 and a hard cap of 172. I was wondering how the 172 was calculated? Is it a multiple of the floor? For that matter, how is the 100 calculated?

Btw, I love the idea of a salary floor. Poor Luton would be fucked. Shame :)

The NBA salary cap is like the NFL's - it's based a percentage of the league's total revenue about 50%, I think the NFL's is ~60%.

The salary floor (minium spend) is 90% of the salary cap.

It seems like an even more convoluted and confusing system to me (but maybe that's in design).

Like you, I have so many questions....

Does the floor value change every year depending upon which of the promoted teams has the lowest value squad? Because this simply isn't workable, it's akin to how we were stitched up by UEFA's goalpost moving. Or do teams who, despite winning the championship, have their entry to the Prem. barred because their team value doesn't meet the floor? Because that won't be accepted by any team outside of those already in the Premier League.

Neither of those situations really work for a sport with promotion/relegation as far as I can see.

No one is suggesting using a salary cap in the Premier league, they're suggesting borrowing the idea of what happens when you break the salary cap and applying that to breaking the spending limit in the PL.

So just like now in the Premier League, Burnely get to spend 70% of Burnley's revenue, Villa get to spend 70% of Villa's revenue.

 

[yankblue]

Sorry, badly phrased. You said there was a soft cap of, say, 100 and a hard cap of 172. I was wondering how the 172 was calculated? Is it a multiple of the floor? For that matter, how is the 100 calculated?

Btw, I love the idea of a salary floor. Poor Luton would be fucked. Shame :)

Ah I see! Theyre bases on a % of the leagues revenue, so they (theoretically) go up over time

edit: Domalino explained it far better than me

 

[Boo or Boo-urns]

Follow the facts and you'll find the money.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

There’s some absolute spunk on this thread but this theory makes me worry for your sanity.

I love it when you talk dirty, SR x

 

[Coatigan]

So just so I've got this clear.

1)FFP was dreamed up to have the league always be won by United or Liverpool.

2)FFP was brought in and in place for 10 years.

3) United and Liverpool have won 1 title in this time.

You've convinced yourself a scheme was created to stop City, it was brought in, it had absolutely zero effect, and that's proof the evil scheme exists.

...and now the rules are being changed to benefit new owners with money coming in and competing with the "protected teams" you're convinced that's also proof of the protection scheme.

Just so I understand this. You are saying the PL is all fair and a lovely set of rules voted by all for all to help everyone equally, has been ruined by City coming in and systematically cheating and breaking the rules for over a decade, while depriving United Liverpool and Arsenal of 7 titles between them. And your proof is, they have only won the one, so all of the above must be true?