Serious question relating to us and FFP(update P17)

I am in the middle of a busy evening with kids etc so I haven't yet read through it all.

Can someone (PB?) clarify that wages are STRICTLY limited to an additional £4m p.a. rise or as I was told earlier by someone that it is limited to a an additional £4m p.a. from TV revenues?

If the latter then there is no worries from our POV and it is clear that the clubs who voted for it are hoping to ring fence the TV monies and stop agents asking for too much.
 
what I don't get is why water down UEFA's set of rules as any club that wants european football has to meet them not the premier leagues? yet that compromise got Chelsea to vote yes??
 
fbloke said:
I am in the middle of a busy evening with kids etc so I haven't yet read through it all.

Can someone (PB?) clarify that wages are STRICTLY limited to an additional £4m p.a. rise or as I was told earlier by someone that it is limited to a an additional £4m p.a. from TV revenues?

If the latter then there is no worries from our POV and it is clear that the clubs who voted for it are hoping to ring fence the TV monies and stop agents asking for too much.
Click to expand...
It seems to be the latter case so you can fund any increase over £4m from an increase in commercial revenue. As you say, no worries from our point of view.
 
It's bullshit how City can't fight this a man a rich as Sheikh Monsour wants to spend his money making us the best club in the world why the fuck shouldn't he be allowed? It's becoming a fucking joke now although cant see it affecting us I think we'll have to shift a few earners before we bring more in.
 
"However, that only applies to revenue centrally distributed by the Premier League - essentially TV income - and does not cover extra money coming in from increases in commercial or matchday income. "

Only sentence you need to read to think who is really behind this. Financial fair play? Hardly.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
There is a light said:
Are these rules for player costs alone and stadium and infrastructure costs etc exempt, in the same way as UEFA's?
Click to expand...
We don't know yet. These may just be skeleton proposals and need a lot of work to firm up the details.
Click to expand...

Thanks. That really would be a blow to our future plans would it not?

At least in UEFA's rules, growth can be achieved by other means to enable us to spend more on the pitch.

I'm more worried about that than anything else tbh.

And how would these rules impact on the solid plans that are already in place?
 
if all teams are to be treated as equals the money from Sky should be distributed equally. Do these big teams want the likes of Swansea, Everton and Stoke to join the party or are some teams more equal than others???
 
What an almighty mess. Enough clubs never bothered to ask what problems they were trying to solve and have ended up probably making a few worse. Six clubs appear to hav voted against and may dtill take action in law if they are docked points, especially if the title or qualification for the CL are put at risk or if relegation results.

City have not been stuffed, which appears to have been the overriding aim. The Sheikh has no intention of ploughing in £105 million in 3 years and, anyway, is looking to increase revenue...especially commercia, which will pay the wages!

No other club CAN put in sums like that, but any club can still lose upto £35 million pa without any problem. No solution of any problem there.

What's the point?
 
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.