The Prophet Posted March 19 Share Posted March 19 1 hour ago, Dokko said: They'll scrap it. Give everton and forest their points back as long as they show sustainablity. Clubs will be freer to spend as long as owners don't loan but gift. Remove all the shady deals, UK gets bigger tax from football. Forest and Everton's appeal will be over well before a regulator comes in. Agreed they'll scrap PSR in it's current form though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Prophet Posted March 19 Share Posted March 19 https://www.theguardian.com/football/2024/mar/19/football-governance-bill-reveals-extent-of-english-regulators-proposed-powers?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted March 19 Share Posted March 19 1 minute ago, The Prophet said: https://www.theguardian.com/football/2024/mar/19/football-governance-bill-reveals-extent-of-english-regulators-proposed-powers?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter See the powers the utilities regulators etc have that don't get used. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Infatuation Junkie Posted March 19 Share Posted March 19 Does anyone at all think clubs will end up being allowed to spend what they want ever again? Im quite interested in what people think might happen once Masters collapses Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbandit Posted March 19 Share Posted March 19 Once regulation comes in there’s always going to be some, more often than not, it just leads to other regulations Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Prophet Posted March 19 Share Posted March 19 44 minutes ago, madras said: See the powers the utilities regulators etc have that don't get used. True, but Ofwat, Ofgem, etc aren't independent. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbandit Posted March 19 Share Posted March 19 OfCom just handed out a slap on the wrist that was more like a lover’s embrace to GB News Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pixelphish Posted March 19 Share Posted March 19 42 minutes ago, Infatuation Junkie said: Does anyone at all think clubs will end up being allowed to spend what they want ever again? Im quite interested in what people think might happen once Masters collapses Certainly hope not. Id hate to see NUFC just blow a billion+ up the wall. Soulless and detached very quickly. But we shouldn't be at the whim of the traditional 'big' clubs either. Nothing new there I know but it makes me feel better repeating it. The idea of being allowed to spend the same as the highest revenue club seems good. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackie Broon Posted March 19 Share Posted March 19 (edited) 59 minutes ago, Infatuation Junkie said: Does anyone at all think clubs will end up being allowed to spend what they want ever again? Im quite interested in what people think might happen once Masters collapses Not as a result of the football regulator, even if they got rid the the PL's FFP rules clubs in europe would still be subject to UEFA's. The only way would be is if there's a successful challenge of the FFP rules which affects both the PL and UEFA rules. Even then, it would probably result in them changing the rules so they allow more scope to allow clubs to catch-up than it being a free-for-all. Edited March 19 by Jackie Broon Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stifler Posted March 19 Share Posted March 19 A regulator means fuck all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack27 Posted March 19 Share Posted March 19 (edited) 1 minute ago, Stifler said: A regulator means fuck all. Last act of desperation for Rishi and the gang edit: I support the idea of a regulator, hard to be seen how it will go with current shambles in government though Edited March 19 by Jack27 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloydianMag Posted March 19 Share Posted March 19 Just now, Jack27 said: Last act of desperation for Rishi and the gang Probably……but then Labour would probably go down the same route, when the votes come in the HoC they’ll vote with the government. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SAK Posted March 19 Share Posted March 19 (edited) 1 hour ago, Infatuation Junkie said: Does anyone at all think clubs will end up being allowed to spend what they want ever again? Im quite interested in what people think might happen once Masters collapses Think there will be a cap set at the same level that all clubs can spend in theory but there will be income/expenditure rules in relation to this figure with any shortfall being allowed to be made up by owners as long as it is not via loans against the club. Edited March 19 by SAK Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloydianMag Posted March 19 Share Posted March 19 5 minutes ago, SAK said: Think there will be a cap set at the same level that all clubs can spend in theory but there will be income/expenditure rules in relation to this figure with any shortfall being allowed to be made up by owners as long as it is not via loans against the club. And also that any money invested by an owner is legit. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
timeEd32 Posted March 19 Share Posted March 19 6 minutes ago, SAK said: Think there will be a cap set at the same level that all clubs can spend in theory but there will be income/expenditure rules in relation to this figure with any shortfall being allowed to be made up by owners as long as it is not via loans against the club. Something like this would be my favorite version if it wasn't for the UEFA complexity. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloydianMag Posted March 19 Share Posted March 19 2 minutes ago, timeEd32 said: Something like this would be my favorite version if it wasn't for the UEFA complexity. A ruling here in the UK over the capping of agents fees forced FIFA and UEFA to backtrack and halt implementation of rules, could go the same way with FFP, who knows. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Prophet Posted March 19 Share Posted March 19 47 minutes ago, Jack27 said: Last act of desperation for Rishi and the gang edit: I support the idea of a regulator, hard to be seen how it will go with current shambles in government though Once its gone through Parliament, it's independent of Government. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Prophet Posted March 19 Share Posted March 19 59 minutes ago, Stifler said: A regulator means fuck all. Why not? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keegans Export Posted March 19 Share Posted March 19 I'll put this in a spoiler because it's wordy but there are some interesting bits in the white paper about clubs spending. Spoiler 5.19. Owner funding and the financial resilience of clubs is interrelated. Where clubs are heavily owner funded, funding comes from a more risky source, or is not diversified, clubs are more susceptible and less resilient to shocks. This is true even if the owner has always previously met their financial obligations. A key factor which can lead to financial distress is this heavy reliance on owner funding, where some owners can overspend unconstrained, build up large debt, and then ‘walk away’. This leaves fans with a financially distressed club at risk of being unable to attract new ownership, or worse, with no club at all. Historically, it is in these scenarios that we see the worst harm to fans and their local communities - this is why intervention is needed. 5.20. Owner funding can allow clubs to chase ambition, and has been a key factor in growing English football into the exciting, and valuable, product it is. Where requirements like salary caps would limit this dynamic competition, it is the government’s view that the Regulator should not unduly limit or deter sustainable owner investment. Clubs should be allowed to enjoy the benefits of investment and spending, but enjoy them while being disciplined. 5.21. However, high owner subsidisation can contribute to overspend on player wages, in turn encouraging other clubs to overspend to compete and further driving up costs. Funding into the game is and will continue to be welcomed. There may be extreme circumstances when it would be sensible for the Regulator to have a role in considering where the overall level of owner injections into the game might be destabilising - given its primary objective on the overall stability of the regime. If the Regulator anticipated that - subject to a shock or change - the stability of the league could be severely threatened, it could use discretion to determine specific licence conditions taking account of the stability of the specific club, and also that of the leagues. A regulator taking a view on the stability of a market is a standard approach to regulation. 5.22. The government recognises the need for a balance between ensuring that clubs have sufficient financial resources, and minimising any deterrence of investment. Having risk-based and proportionate regulation would empower the Regulator to intervene as little as possible where possible, but require clubs to improve their finances where necessary for long-term sustainability. I've highlighted some bits I think are relevant. To me what this is saying is essentially; We don't have a problem with owners spending money as long as; 1. They can afford it 2. They don't laden the club with crippling debt to do so 3. The spending isn't so extreme that it risks destabilising the league through inflationary pressure Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbandit Posted March 19 Share Posted March 19 In fairness, the government are desperate for investment nationally from KSA. Whether we have a Labour government in six months’ time or nine months, they will share the same feelings as the Tories. They’ll be the ones who shape how the regulator functions so it feels like an independent regulator is more likely to aid those who want to spend big Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
timeEd32 Posted March 19 Share Posted March 19 16 minutes ago, Keegans Export said: I'll put this in a spoiler because it's wordy but there are some interesting bits in the white paper about clubs spending. Hide contents 5.19. Owner funding and the financial resilience of clubs is interrelated. Where clubs are heavily owner funded, funding comes from a more risky source, or is not diversified, clubs are more susceptible and less resilient to shocks. This is true even if the owner has always previously met their financial obligations. A key factor which can lead to financial distress is this heavy reliance on owner funding, where some owners can overspend unconstrained, build up large debt, and then ‘walk away’. This leaves fans with a financially distressed club at risk of being unable to attract new ownership, or worse, with no club at all. Historically, it is in these scenarios that we see the worst harm to fans and their local communities - this is why intervention is needed. 5.20. Owner funding can allow clubs to chase ambition, and has been a key factor in growing English football into the exciting, and valuable, product it is. Where requirements like salary caps would limit this dynamic competition, it is the government’s view that the Regulator should not unduly limit or deter sustainable owner investment. Clubs should be allowed to enjoy the benefits of investment and spending, but enjoy them while being disciplined. 5.21. However, high owner subsidisation can contribute to overspend on player wages, in turn encouraging other clubs to overspend to compete and further driving up costs. Funding into the game is and will continue to be welcomed. There may be extreme circumstances when it would be sensible for the Regulator to have a role in considering where the overall level of owner injections into the game might be destabilising - given its primary objective on the overall stability of the regime. If the Regulator anticipated that - subject to a shock or change - the stability of the league could be severely threatened, it could use discretion to determine specific licence conditions taking account of the stability of the specific club, and also that of the leagues. A regulator taking a view on the stability of a market is a standard approach to regulation. 5.22. The government recognises the need for a balance between ensuring that clubs have sufficient financial resources, and minimising any deterrence of investment. Having risk-based and proportionate regulation would empower the Regulator to intervene as little as possible where possible, but require clubs to improve their finances where necessary for long-term sustainability. I've highlighted some bits I think are relevant. To me what this is saying is essentially; We don't have a problem with owners spending money as long as; 1. They can afford it 2. They don't laden the club with crippling debt to do so 3. The spending isn't so extreme that it risks destabilising the league through inflationary pressure This all sounds so perfect that it reads like total fantasy to me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
duo Posted March 19 Share Posted March 19 2 hours ago, The Prophet said: https://www.theguardian.com/football/2024/mar/19/football-governance-bill-reveals-extent-of-english-regulators-proposed-powers?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter Governments have no place in football Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbandit Posted March 19 Share Posted March 19 Just now, duo said: Governments have no place in football Slightly ironic given who we’re owned by Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
duo Posted March 19 Share Posted March 19 Just now, gbandit said: Slightly ironic given who we’re owned by ha true Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colos Short and Curlies Posted March 19 Share Posted March 19 1 hour ago, SAK said: Think there will be a cap set at the same level that all clubs can spend in theory but there will be income/expenditure rules in relation to this figure with any shortfall being allowed to be made up by owners as long as it is not via loans against the club. That's probably the answer, have a wages/spend cap based on 80% of the top earner or something but the spend has to be underwritten by cash in escrow or through injected capital Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now