Financial Fair Play / Profit & Sustainability

[Jonas]

Couldn't be stitched up more in the already established elites favour and against everybody else.  It couldn't be less fair.

 

 

Edited April 23 by Jonas

[Dokko]

Supporters trusts for all the clubs set upon by the PL and now FA need to club together all their subs and hire a legal team to blow apart the system on their behalf. If the clubs won't save our game, then it has to be the fans. 

[SAK]

This whole play nice approach isn’t working. Sometimes people only understand they should back off when they get a slap.

[WilliamPS]

The stuff in the article really isn’t that bad. It’s about friendly games played after the end of the season but before international games. Can see why the FA hate that and also that it’s bad for players. 
 

As an England fan I’d rather Trippier and Gordon didn’t have to go to Australia between the end of the season and the Euros.

 

The problem is FPP makes clubs chase every penny.

[Jack27]

 

[Shearergol]

41 minutes ago, WilliamPS said:

The stuff in the article really isn’t that bad. It’s about friendly games played after the end of the season but before international games. Can see why the FA hate that and also that it’s bad for players. 
 

As an England fan I’d rather Trippier and Gordon didn’t have to go to Australia between the end of the season and the Euros.

 

The problem is FPP makes clubs chase every penny.

You’ll be fine, Rashford will go instead of AG anyway.

[SUPERTOON]

Shame the FA aren’t as keen to stop meaningless England friendlies during the season.

[et tu brute]

It's a blatant restraint of trade, take the fuckers to court.
 

[Wolfcastle]

43 minutes ago, WilliamPS said:

The stuff in the article really isn’t that bad. It’s about friendly games played after the end of the season but before international games. Can see why the FA hate that and also that it’s bad for players. 
 

As an England fan I’d rather Trippier and Gordon didn’t have to go to Australia between the end of the season and the Euros.

 

The problem is FPP makes clubs chase every penny.

 

Got to wonder if the price hikes for fans across the board are as high and across the  board as they are without FFP. 

That there is no beneficiaries other than the cunt clubs tells the story.

[Dr Jinx]

So say we need to make up somewhere between 30 and 50 million in sales.

 

Wilson, Almiron and a younger sacrificial lamb would more than cover that. Minteh?

[OpenC]

I wish those miserable antisport cunts at the top had just fucked off to form their WWE superleague and we had ended up with less wealthy owners just playing Everton and West Ham and Sunderland and the like in an actual competition

 

 

Edited April 24 by OpenC

[FloydianMag]

Just now, OpenC said:

I wish those miserable antisport cunts at the top had just fucked off to form their WWE superleague and we had ended up with less wealthy owners just playing Everton and West Ham in an actual competition like

Leave the PL? The twats wanted both, it was never a choice for them.

[Stifler]

3 minutes ago, FloydianMag said:

Leave the PL? The twats wanted both, it was never a choice for them.

We all know it would have ended up with them leaving the Premier League, or B teaming it.

 

 

Edited April 24 by Stifler

[FloydianMag]

2 minutes ago, Stifler said:

We all know it would have ended up with them leaving the Premier League, or B teaming it.

 

 

 

They’d still end up with both 🤷🏼‍♂️

[Fezzle]

16 hours ago, Geordie_once_removed said:

Here is another thing that pisses me off about PSR rules. As fans we suffered for years under Ashley's penny pinching regime. The only "benefit" of this was that the accounts were in decent order for the new owners to be able to initially spend when they came in.  Now they can't do that any more. But Chelsea were heavily in debt to their owner because of heavy spending on their squad and they would have been heading for trouble under the current rules, but as they were bought they got a free pass to wipe all this debt out.The rationale behind this has never been clear to me, but it has clearly allowed Chelsea, who were already had a stronger squad to build upon, to vastly out spend Newcastle and give themselves a big advantage with no PSR punishment. Yet.

That much is obvious mind, their debt wasnt/isnt part of FFP. Its based on yearly losses and some very creative accounting/dodgydeals etc but hopefully they are finally going to fail it.

[Paully]

Money, money, money - absolute shite but you know fine the PL will follow suit 

 

https://x.com/football__tweet/status/1783130908792381655?s=46&t=FsEm6VC2ijNnTjHjyXU7DA

[NG32]

13 minutes ago, Paully said:

Money, money, money - absolute shite but you know fine the PL will follow suit 

 

https://x.com/football__tweet/status/1783130908792381655?s=46&t=FsEm6VC2ijNnTjHjyXU7DA

Wasn't that floated ages ago and it got shouted down by fans?

[Nobody]

1 hour ago, Paully said:

Money, money, money - absolute shite but you know fine the PL will follow suit 

 

https://x.com/football__tweet/status/1783130908792381655?s=46&t=FsEm6VC2ijNnTjHjyXU7DA

Have you got a proper source for that?

[Gaztoon]

1 hour ago, Paully said:

Money, money, money - absolute shite but you know fine the PL will follow suit 

 

https://x.com/football__tweet/status/1783130908792381655?s=46&t=FsEm6VC2ijNnTjHjyXU7DA

 

Apart from Barcelona and real Madrid..there isn't a Spanish team that would attract interest.. so why not just admit its a money maker for barca and Real.

[Paully]

https://theathletic.com/5441916/2024/04/24/premier-league-salary-spending-cap/?source=user_shared_article

[The Prophet]

https://theathletic.com/5441916/2024/04/24/premier-league-salary-spending-cap?source=user-shared-article

 

The Premier League is heading towards another contentious vote on Monday with a majority of clubs keen to add a hard spending cap to the new “squad cost” rules that are being introduced for the 2025-26 season.

 

Based on the concept of “anchoring”, the de facto salary cap would limit the amount of money any club can invest in their squads by tying it to a multiple of what the lowest earners get from the league’s centralised broadcast and commercial deals.

 

Earlier this month, the clubs unanimously backed a proposal to progress talks on the squad cost regime, with a view to finalising the new rules at June’s annual general meeting. Since then, the league has sent out proposals on anchoring and scheduled a meeting on the matter for Thursday.

 

The plan is then to ask the clubs to back the idea in principle at another meeting of the league’s shareholders — the 20 clubs and the Football Association — on Monday.

 

When the idea was first suggested last year, the top-to-bottom multiple its backers had in mind was 4.5 but, with several clubs strongly opposed to the cap, the league is now suggesting a looser multiple of five.

 

The hope is that the cap will operate as a backstop to the more fluid squad cost rule, which ties the amount clubs can spend to their own revenues, and raising the multiple should placate the idea’s biggest critics.

 

However, Chelsea, Manchester City and Manchester United have already expressed their concerns about the idea, pointing out it is potentially a breach of UK competition law.

 

What will it look like?

 

If anchoring was in effect last season, the cap would have been £518million, five times the £103.6m that Southampton, who finished 20th, earned in centralised revenues, with Chelsea spending more than that on wages, amortised transfer fees and payments to agents, with Manchester City not far behind.

 

Unsurprisingly, the idea is far more popular with clubs further down the revenue table. They see it as a way to stop the league’s biggest earners from being able to outspend them at an ever-expanding rate. Without it, they fear the league’s already fragile competitive balance would be further eroded.

 

The move could be viewed as a boost for other leagues looking to close the gap on the Premier League, although rivals such as La Liga in Spain already employ their own bespoke spending cap regime.

 

This model though is the first tying a club’s spending to another club’s revenue with other iterations of financial fair play (FFP) rules based on a club’s own revenue.

 

For example, when the English Football League tried to apply a soft salary cap in the Championship at the start of the pandemic, the PFA successfully blocked it.

 

However, that was because the EFL had failed to properly consult with the union before proposing the cap. For anchoring — or the squad cost rule, for that matter — to have any chance of being introduced, the league knows it must be approved by the Professional Football Negotiating and Consultative Committee, the body that brings the union, the EFL, FA and Premier League together to discuss matters relating to the employment of players.

 

All that is for the future, though, as the first hurdle that anchoring must clear is finding sufficient support within the Premier League, where a two-thirds (14-6) majority of the clubs is needed to change the rulebook.

 

The recent rows over the league’s financial distribution offer to the rest of the pyramid and its rules on associated-party transactions have shown how hard it can be to clear that hurdle, with the 20 clubs less united on a whole range of issues than at any time in the last 30 years.For example, when the English Football League tried to apply a soft salary cap in the Championship at the start of the pandemic, the PFA successfully blocked it.

 

However, that was because the EFL had failed to properly consult with the union before proposing the cap. For anchoring — or the squad cost rule, for that matter — to have any chance of being introduced, the league knows it must be approved by the Professional Football Negotiating and Consultative Committee, the body that brings the union, the EFL, FA and Premier League together to discuss matters relating to the employment of players.

 

All that is for the future, though, as the first hurdle that anchoring must clear is finding sufficient support within the Premier League, where a two-thirds (14-6) majority of the clubs is needed to change the rulebook.

 

The recent rows over the league’s financial distribution offer to the rest of the pyramid and its rules on associated-party transactions have shown how hard it can be to clear that hurdle, with the 20 clubs less united on a whole range of issues than at any time in the last 30 years.

 

 

Edited April 24 by The Prophet

[wormy]

1 hour ago, Nobody said:

Have you got a proper source for that?

 

Who are you to doubt the great football__tweet? 

[Keegans Export]

5 minutes ago, The Prophet said:

https://theathletic.com/5441916/2024/04/24/premier-league-salary-spending-cap?source=user-shared-article

 

The Premier League is heading towards another contentious vote on Monday with a majority of clubs keen to add a hard spending cap to the new “squad cost” rules that are being introduced for the 2025-26 season.

 

Based on the concept of “anchoring”, the de facto salary cap would limit the amount of money any club can invest in their squads by tying it to a multiple of what the lowest earners get from the league’s centralised broadcast and commercial deals.

 

Earlier this month, the clubs unanimously backed a proposal to progress talks on the squad cost regime, with a view to finalising the new rules at June’s annual general meeting. Since then, the league has sent out proposals on anchoring and scheduled a meeting on the matter for Thursday.

 

The plan is then to ask the clubs to back the idea in principle at another meeting of the league’s shareholders — the 20 clubs and the Football Association — on Monday.

 

When the idea was first suggested last year, the top-to-bottom multiple its backers had in mind was 4.5 but, with several clubs strongly opposed to the cap, the league is now suggesting a looser multiple of five.

 

The hope is that the cap will operate as a backstop to the more fluid squad cost rule, which ties the amount clubs can spend to their own revenues, and raising the multiple should placate the idea’s biggest critics.

 

However, Chelsea, Manchester City and Manchester United have already expressed their concerns about the idea, pointing out it is potentially a breach of UK competition law.

 

What will it look like?

 

If anchoring was in effect last season, the cap would have been £518million, five times the £103.6m that Southampton, who finished 20th, earned in centralised revenues, with Chelsea spending more than that on wages, amortised transfer fees and payments to agents, with Manchester City not far behind.

 

Unsurprisingly, the idea is far more popular with clubs further down the revenue table. They see it as a way to stop the league’s biggest earners from being able to outspend them at an ever-expanding rate. Without it, they fear the league’s already fragile competitive balance would be further eroded.

 

The move could be viewed as a boost for other leagues looking to close the gap on the Premier League, although rivals such as La Liga in Spain already employ their own bespoke spending cap regime.

 

This model though is the first tying a club’s spending to another club’s revenue with other iterations of financial fair play (FFP) rules based on a club’s own revenue.

 

For example, when the English Football League tried to apply a soft salary cap in the Championship at the start of the pandemic, the PFA successfully blocked it.

 

However, that was because the EFL had failed to properly consult with the union before proposing the cap. For anchoring — or the squad cost rule, for that matter — to have any chance of being introduced, the league knows it must be approved by the Professional Football Negotiating and Consultative Committee, the body that brings the union, the EFL, FA and Premier League together to discuss matters relating to the employment of players.

 

All that is for the future, though, as the first hurdle that anchoring must clear is finding sufficient support within the Premier League, where a two-thirds (14-6) majority of the clubs is needed to change the rulebook.

 

The recent rows over the league’s financial distribution offer to the rest of the pyramid and its rules on associated-party transactions have shown how hard it can be to clear that hurdle, with the 20 clubs less united on a whole range of issues than at any time in the last 30 years.For example, when the English Football League tried to apply a soft salary cap in the Championship at the start of the pandemic, the PFA successfully blocked it.

 

However, that was because the EFL had failed to properly consult with the union before proposing the cap. For anchoring — or the squad cost rule, for that matter — to have any chance of being introduced, the league knows it must be approved by the Professional Football Negotiating and Consultative Committee, the body that brings the union, the EFL, FA and Premier League together to discuss matters relating to the employment of players.

 

All that is for the future, though, as the first hurdle that anchoring must clear is finding sufficient support within the Premier League, where a two-thirds (14-6) majority of the clubs is needed to change the rulebook.

 

The recent rows over the league’s financial distribution offer to the rest of the pyramid and its rules on associated-party transactions have shown how hard it can be to clear that hurdle, with the 20 clubs less united on a whole range of issues than at any time in the last 30 years.

 

 

 

First glance - is that considerably better for us than either £105m/3yrs or the 85% cap?

 

Obviously teams in Europe will still have to adhere to UEFAs rules presumably 

[Ikon]

Does this mean that any club can spend the same maximum amount? As in not linked to revenue? Would be dreamy so I guess it would be too good to be true. 

 

 

Edited April 24 by Ikon

[healthyaddiction]

Just now, Ikon said:

Does this mean that any club can spend the same maximum amount? As in not linked to revenue? 

I might reading it wrong, but I think it's alongside it. So you're stuck to 70% revenue, but also for those clubs earning much more, they can only spend 5 times the lowest earner.