Financial Fair Play / Profit & Sustainability

[The Prophet]

Sounds like it'd work in tandem with the UEFA inspired framework.

[Ikon]

So same shit then basically. 

[healthyaddiction]

Just now, Ikon said:

So same shit then basically. 

I mean it's a rule that only negatively affects the big 6, so that's a change.

[CheikBoom]

If this means the Big 6 will do off to the ESL, bring it on.

 

Devil is in the detail, but it looks significantly better at first glance?

[Ikon]

3 minutes ago, healthyaddiction said:

I mean it's a rule that only negatively affects the big 6, so that's a change.

What is the revenue of the “bottom” club now then? 100m? Less?  Clubs can spend X amount times 5? Sounds like quite a lot? Unless the figure is much less 100m revenue. But still not more than 70% of your own revenue? 

 

 

Edited April 24 by Ikon

[FloydianMag]

1 minute ago, healthyaddiction said:

I mean it's a rule that only negatively affects the big 6, so that's a change.

I could see the PFA mounting a legal challenge to salary caps, FIFA and the PL have already lost a case when they attempted to cap agents fees.

[The Prophet]

As Ikon says, in practice it wouldn't make too much difference to us at present.

[OpenC]

Is there any actual argument about restriction of trade and anticompetition etc etc if you're voluntarily running a football club with the purpose of competing in the Premier League's competition?  I keep reading about legal challenges and what have you, but surely the PL can just say 'wey it's our competition and nobody is forcing them to compete in it; if they can find a league that runs exactly as they want it to run, they're welcome to play in it'

 

 

Edited April 24 by OpenC

[The College Dropout]

10 minutes ago, Ikon said:

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. 

 

 

 

But clubs in Europe will have a UEFA imposed revenue cap.

 

Big 4/5 clubs will cry. But good news for the rest. Even Spurs.

[timeEd32]

29 minutes ago, The Prophet said:

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.

 

 

Ah, so now it's anti-competitive. But preventing owners from spending money they have is just fine.

[SUPERTOON]

On the face of it, it’s sounds like a good thing ?

[Geordie Ahmed]

4 minutes ago, SUPERTOON said:

On the face of it, it’s sounds like a good thing ?

 

Makes no difference at all

 

The squad cost rules will limit us anyway, we won't get remotely close to being able to spend 5 times the lowest revenue

 

In time when our revenue grows then it might be a factor but it would then limit us

 

So no difference at the moment and perhaps a slight hindrance in the future

 

Now if they ditched PSR/FFP and simply implemented a 5 times revenue cap then we'd be cooking

[Scoot]

Reading that, I've no idea whether that's good or bad for us.

[timeEd32]

16 minutes ago, Scoot said:

Reading that, I've no idea whether that's good or bad for us.

 

If it happened it would have a small indirect benefit for us in that it would put a ceiling on the likes of City. But it's still a very high limit and all of the other restrictions would still be there so it wouldn't change anything in terms of what we can/can't spend.

[r0cafella]

5 hours ago, SUPERTOON said:

On the face of it, it’s sounds like a good thing ?

It would be a good thing yes, it will ultimately limit how far the big boys can run into the distance as they are capped at a limit lower than revenue. 
 

That being said, I’ve got no idea why the PL is so determined to make the league less competitive on the bigger stage. Ultimately such rules means you will never see an Mbappe grace these shores but PSG and Madrid would remain viable options. 
 

It’s quite clear the owners are in full on protection mode without paying much attention to the bigger picture. 

[McDog]

50 minutes ago, r0cafella said:

It would be a good thing yes, it will ultimately limit how far the big boys can run into the distance as they are capped at a limit lower than revenue. 
 

That being said, I’ve got no idea why the PL is so determined to make the league less competitive on the bigger stage. Ultimately such rules means you will never see an Mbappe grace these shores but PSG and Madrid would remain viable options. 
 

It’s quite clear the owners are in full on protection mode without paying much attention to the bigger picture. 

 

 

It's a decent point, that.

[NG32]

From the Athletic article "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."

 

Isn't that just out right hypocrisy ?

[FloydianMag]

13 minutes ago, NG32 said:

From the Athletic article "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."

 

Isn't that just out right hypocrisy ?

They’re correct though and to be fair  Man City have always been opposed to FFP/FMV/PSR/RPT for the same reason, they’re anti competitive. It’s another example of governing bodies involving themselves in clubs commercial activities. The more rules the PL put in place around finances the more likely it is that a club will challenge it legally.

[Armchair Pundit]

Can't see a wage cap being a good idea at all, it'll deter the very top end players from coming to the league potentially and limiting the ability of clubs to bring in the very best players in the world (if those players can get better money elsewhere). I get that it's probably more of an impact on those current top six clubs now, but it would also affect anyone who finally broke into that clique or needed to pay slightly over the odds to get better players to join them when said players could go to 'bigger' clubs. I'm still of the mind that the luxury tax was a better option, but that seems to have been completely disregarded by the teams in the league. 

[JLC]

https://liveapp.inews.co.uk/2024/04/25/the-new-ffp-rule-that-could-damage-the-big-six-but-boost-clubs-like-newcastle/content.html

 

Douglas take on it

[FloydianMag]

11 minutes ago, JLC said:

https://liveapp.inews.co.uk/2024/04/25/the-new-ffp-rule-that-could-damage-the-big-six-but-boost-clubs-like-newcastle/content.html

 

Douglas take on it

I said in an earlier post the PFA would oppose this and there it is in the article.

 

Agents have already won  a case against FIFA and the PL who wanted to cap their fees on an anti competitive basis.

[TRon]

20 hours ago, OpenC said:

Is there any actual argument about restriction of trade and anticompetition etc etc if you're voluntarily running a football club with the purpose of competing in the Premier League's competition?  I keep reading about legal challenges and what have you, but surely the PL can just say 'wey it's our competition and nobody is forcing them to compete in it; if they can find a league that runs exactly as they want it to run, they're welcome to play in it'

 

 

 

 

Well that does appear to be the PL line on it. It's the only reason I can think of that all this talk of restriction of trade has never gone beyond that into actual legal challenges.

[FloydianMag]

12 minutes ago, TRon said:

 

Well that does appear to be the PL line on it. It's the only reason I can think of that all this talk of restriction of trade has never gone beyond that into actual legal challenges.

I doubt that arguement would stand up to any legal test tbh. Football agents have already won a case on the basis of a cap on fees by the PL being anti competitive.

 

 

Edited April 25 by FloydianMag

[TRon]

2 hours ago, FloydianMag said:

I doubt that arguement would stand up to any legal test tbh. Football agents have already won a case on the basis of a cap on fees by the PL being anti competitive.

 

 

 

 

 

Well I wish we'd flex and at least look like we are going to test the legality then. Otherwise we'll just keep falling further behind as the cartel clubs have already got much higher spending power locked in, and the rules as they are, are designed to keep us locked out.

[Keegans Export]

I'm struggling to see the point of this "anchoring" thing.

 

1. Even if the cap is £500m, most clubs (including ourselves and Villa) still won't be able to spend anywhere near that because of the 70/85% rule

 

2. Looking at the figures posted on the Athletic, only Chelsea would have broken the cap this year (or perhaps last year, I can't remember)

 

So the top 6 can still spend as they are now, while the aspirational clubs are still forced to limit their spending due to their lower turnover?