Dr.Spaceman Posted Friday at 09:12 Share Posted Friday at 09:12 5 minutes ago, janpawel said: Why isn't anchoring calculated on the higher end, ie based on the club with the highest revenue rather than the lowest I know that will probably still allows clubs to spend a shed load and that's probably not what they want But it defeats the argument of the PL losing status to abroad by restricting the top EPL clubs, and instead of 'restricting' teams it 'enables' teams We're competing against Italy, Spain, France and Germany....right? We'll be fine regardless of whatever cap we stick on it. We can't compete with what Saudi offers even with a complete free-for-all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
janpawel Posted Friday at 09:12 Share Posted Friday at 09:12 3 minutes ago, r0cafella said: Anchoring won't run alone, it will be anchoring plus squad cost it's just anchoring is the upper limit. Aye I get that, but I'm still wondering Without thinking of the finer details, anchoring on the higher limit of PL revenue just seems the most fair way to me Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
janpawel Posted Friday at 09:13 Share Posted Friday at 09:13 Just now, Dr.Spaceman said: We're competing against Italy, Spain, France and Germany....right? We'll be fine regardless of whatever cap we stick on it. We can't compete with what Saudi offers even with a complete free-for-all. Yeah, though that isn't my opinion about other leagues, I'm pretty sure that was Sir Jim Rats comment about anchoring. I'm just saying how anchoring with the upper revenue defeats this excuse Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
r0cafella Posted Friday at 09:14 Share Posted Friday at 09:14 Just now, janpawel said: Aye I get that, but I'm still wondering Without thinking of the finer details, anchoring on the higher limit of PL revenue just seems the most fair way to me It's problematic in terms of if everyone can spend 500m per year but they don't have the revenue to back it up then who covers the gap? It would give credence to the patiently false original intent which was to protect clubs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr.Spaceman Posted Friday at 09:25 Share Posted Friday at 09:25 5 minutes ago, janpawel said: Yeah, though that isn't my opinion about other leagues, I'm pretty sure that was Sir Jim Rats comment about anchoring. I'm just saying how anchoring with the upper revenue defeats this excuse God forbid other countries would be allowed to do to the Premier League exactly what the Premier League did to them 35 years ago. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoSelecta Posted Friday at 09:26 Share Posted Friday at 09:26 6 minutes ago, janpawel said: Aye I get that, but I'm still wondering Without thinking of the finer details, anchoring on the higher limit of PL revenue just seems the most fair way to me Anchoring to the top revenue alone would be a true level playing field in the league however they are proposing to run it along side squad cost ratio bollocks. The lower limit anchoring would cap the big revenue clubs and squad cost ratio will limit the lower revenue clubs; so it will help us bridge the gap although some clubs still more equal than others 🐷. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
r0cafella Posted Friday at 09:26 Share Posted Friday at 09:26 Ratface is right on that point, all these rules hurt us internationally. Real Madrid are top dogs worldwide. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cf Posted Friday at 09:27 Share Posted Friday at 09:27 9 minutes ago, janpawel said: Aye I get that, but I'm still wondering Without thinking of the finer details, anchoring on the higher limit of PL revenue just seems the most fair way to me If you anchor on the highest revenue then you effectively haven't anchored at all. Making numbers up but assuming a cap of 70% squad/revenue ratio. Man City. Revenue: 1000m. Max squad cost: 700m. Newcastle. Revenue: 500m. Max squad cost 350m. Ipswich: Revenue: 250m. Max squad cost: 175m. If you set the anchor at 700m then it prevents City from spending any more, but teams below are still restricted by the 70% ratio. City have a clear advantage here. If you set the anchor at say 500m then it restricts City from hitting their full 70% cap but competitively makes things a little bit more balanced by reducing the advantage they have. It leaves Newcastle room to grow their revenue to reach the cap. In both cases poor Ipswich are limited by the 70% rule. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LFEE Posted Friday at 09:36 Share Posted Friday at 09:36 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LFEE Posted Friday at 09:36 Share Posted Friday at 09:36 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LFEE Posted Friday at 09:37 Share Posted Friday at 09:37 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
r0cafella Posted Friday at 09:41 Share Posted Friday at 09:41 3 minutes ago, LFEE said: The last one is the issue I take. So why don't we have an allowance of 1,3b to level the playing field? It makes no sense this isn't a thing. When you adjust for inflation it's an absolute joke these rules exist. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stifler Posted Friday at 09:48 Share Posted Friday at 09:48 2 minutes ago, r0cafella said: The last one is the issue I take. So why don't we have an allowance of 1,3b to level the playing field? It makes no sense this isn't a thing. When you adjust for inflation it's an absolute joke these rules exist. And that’s net spend. Remember the likes of Liverpool usually sell a star striker to bring in a foreign star striker for much less, Torres, Suarez etc, as well as selling to Saudi clubs for fortunes. Chelsea buy every teenager in the academies of other clubs before they are 16, then sell them as soon as they hit their 20’s. Meanwhile we have never been able to purchase a decent player to begin with, and our academy prospects like Bobby Clark are poached by the likes of Liverpool before they flog him on for a profit, and when we do have a semi-decent player and wish to sell to Saudi, we have to absolutely stunt the fee to ridiculously low levels for the Premier League to say that it’s fair. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JT24 Posted Friday at 14:38 Share Posted Friday at 14:38 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Prophet Posted Friday at 14:52 Share Posted Friday at 14:52 Go on City. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Prophet Posted Friday at 15:26 Share Posted Friday at 15:26 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NG32 Posted Friday at 15:28 Share Posted Friday at 15:28 City going for it. They must smell blood! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The College Dropout Posted Friday at 15:30 Share Posted Friday at 15:30 Net spend is naff. Squad cost + wages is a better marker of expense. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUPERTOON Posted Friday at 15:30 Share Posted Friday at 15:30 Guessing this means the prem won the last round then. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Prophet Posted Friday at 15:38 Share Posted Friday at 15:38 Still waiting for an outcome I think. Chances are if they're successful, they'll drop this. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUPERTOON Posted Friday at 15:43 Share Posted Friday at 15:43 5 minutes ago, The Prophet said: Still waiting for an outcome I think. Chances are if they're successful, they'll drop this. Just thinking they wouldn’t have bothered with this one if they thought they had won that one. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloydianMag Posted Friday at 18:54 Share Posted Friday at 18:54 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted Friday at 18:56 Share Posted Friday at 18:56 3 hours ago, SUPERTOON said: Just thinking they wouldn’t have bothered with this one if they thought they had won that one. I think citeh just want to hit them over and over with legal cases until the yeild. One of them will run out of money, and it won't be citeh. Eventually it will all fall down, and we're just waiting in the wings for it to happen. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keegans Export Posted Friday at 18:58 Share Posted Friday at 18:58 3 hours ago, The Prophet said: Still waiting for an outcome I think. Chances are if they're successful, they'll drop this. 3 hours ago, SUPERTOON said: Just thinking they wouldn’t have bothered with this one if they thought they had won that one. What the tweet above appears to be speculating is that the panel have said that any changes the PL have made to the rules after the hearing (ie the ones that got voted through at the end of last year) are beyond their remit, therefore another hearing is needed to determine whether the amended rules are valid or not. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheHoob Posted Friday at 19:02 Share Posted Friday at 19:02 PL eating itself pt.2365 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