Premier League Vote (Updated)

Spot on and the clubs who are key in this are those like everton, stoke, Sunderland who make it look like there is ambition but who actually prefer the status quo of PL income but just spending enough to make it look like they are aiming high.
We are continually told that moyes does a fantastic job "on a limited budget". that should be "on the limited ambition of the board who are scared of using shareholder money to aim for success" in case they have to keep funding the quest for success year on year.
This is a victory for those who aim for mediocrity.

Mediocrity is one thing you can never accuse city of. Aiming high and fucking up came easy to us. That is what these other clubs and their managers are scared of. If they have a reason why they cant spend money it suits them
 
Just to make it clear, this is not as harsh as UEFA FFP. The wage restriction of an increase of only £4m in the first year (then £8m and £12m) only applies to media income. All of any additional ticket or commercial income we get can also be used.

So we can only use £4m of the increased media income next season to increase wages. however, if we increase commercial income by £20m, we can use all of that to fund wages if we want. The other factor in our favour is that our wage bill is excessively high at the moment as we have a number of players on it we're going to get rid of and not replace.

So let's say our wage bill this year ends up as £175m. Even without any increase in non-media income, we can increase that to £179m the following year. However, if we sell players that cost us £25m a year in wages, we can effectively increase our wage bill by £29m. If we add an additional £20m of commercial income, we can increase that by a total of £49m. As we're presumably looking to reduce the wage bill anyway, this shouldn't be a problem for us.

The other restriction is that a maximum aggregate loss of £105m over 3 years is allowed as long as owners are prepared to fund that. In contrast, UEFA FFP only allows a maximum of €45m (c£40m) over those same 3 years
 
Some good responses on here. For myself, I would be far happier if the rules went on to specify a reduction in balance sheet debt, something that affects MANU more than the rest. I have no problem in any club spending money if they have it and have no need to borrow it, but if debt is there, this should be addressed first and foremost. Anyone who has trouble in paying a mortgage and is worried about losing their source of income will understand this, and it is no difference in the world of football. If clubs such as Chelsea or Arsenal fail to make the Champions League, they will experience a huge drop in income, and if the new rules prevent qualifiers from progressing into the knock-out stages of the competition, the shit will surely hit the fan.
 
First Post so be kind!!

Having read through comments in the press and from the chairmen of various clubs, I have come to the following conclusions.

This is designed to stop agents asking for a payrise for their players next season as the sky money has increased. The money sky have pumped into the game over the years is what has funded the massive rise in player salaries, and the chairmen of the small to medium sized clubs dont want this increase in money going the same way.
They may also be looking at this increase as a way to perhaps get some of their own money back, as many will have injected funds into their clubs over the years..... So better in their pockets than the players could be what is behind a lot of this.

This will not affect us in any way, the salary bill will probably reduce if anything as players contracts end and others are renewed and become more bonus based. So this is very much a case of too little too late as far as City are concerned.

There will be lots of tub thumping from opposing fans, who simply dont understand the rules. Let alone that we voted against it for no more reason than it is morally wrong.

They will have to try a lot harder if they want to stop us, as things are still very much in the early stages, and will only get bigger and better.......

Onwards and upwards
 
I'm no cynic said:
Some good responses on here. For myself, I would be far happier if the rules went on to specify a reduction in balance sheet debt, something that affects MANU more than the rest. I have no problem in any club spending money if they have it and have no need to borrow it, but if debt is there, this should be addressed first and foremost. Anyone who has trouble in paying a mortgage and is worried about losing their source of income will understand this, and it is no difference in the world of football. If clubs such as Chelsea or Arsenal fail to make the Champions League, they will experience a huge drop in income, and if the new rules prevent qualifiers from progressing into the knock-out stages of the competition, the shit will surely hit the fan.
Click to expand...

As much I get what your saying. From what I understand of the RAGs situation. They have enough of a turnover to guarantee payment of their debt and massive operating profit on top of that. Hence the Glaziers can take massive chunks. They still have the capability to spend a fair chunk of cash.

Seems like the threat of City gatecrashing and ruining their monopoloy has kicked start them into spending more on trying to ensure they remain the top brand.

I was also led to believe they are well on track to complete the payment of their debt within the agreed timescales. These fuckers have been extremely clever over the last 12-24 months
 
Thanks Squirty

We all have our suspicions as to why some BIG! clubs want this, and I doubt it has anything to do with fair play....
 
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.