Decky Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 More rules to just complicate the game further. This rule runs alongside this other rule but if you finish high enough in the league you'll be in another competition so those two previous rules have to then run alongside these other rules that you have now also have to follow. It must be an absolute mind fuck running a football club these days. Go back to the days of letting clubs just spend what they want or change the rules to allow owners to invest their own money into the club but protect it from crippling debts. Were clubs going out of business left right and centre before these rules? I don't think they were. Most people who own a club want a return on their investment, not run the thing into the ground and lose millions. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mazzy Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 Interesting that Chelsea abstained and also interesting Villa voted against it. Obviously understandable why both Manchester clubs did though. Must seemingly be positive for ourselves else you'd hope we'd have voted against it. Suprising that it will be ratified this summer, I thought it would take longer than that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The College Dropout Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 5 minutes ago, et tu brute said: It does until we reach the 5 x lowest premier league club level though. We're currently at 250 million. If it's running alongside the 85 or 70% rule, then it does still impact the spending. This allows us to close the gap quicker, whilst the 'big 5' can't increase their levels of spending. But we can’t increase our spending if we want to play in Europe. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
et tu brute Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 2 minutes ago, The College Dropout said: But we can’t increase our spending if we want to play in Europe. UEFA rules I imagine will fall in line. It's all down to increased sponsorship/commercial deals anyway. There is fundamentally a requirement to increase revenue. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronson333 Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 Liverpool and Man Utd fans working out it benefits us more than anyone else 😀. It’s probably a bigger day for us than many of us realise. https://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=297245.1920 https://www.redcafe.net/threads/premier-league-clubs-have-agreed-in-principle-to-introduce-a-spending-cap.482447/#post-31889473 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
manorpark Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 (edited) 31 minutes ago, midds said: I think the fact only 3/20 teams actively dislike this new introduction is really encouraging for us and others. It suggests that many clubs are massively pissed off with the FFP/PSR rules as they currently stand and they need complete overhaul, not only do many reject FFP but they're now willing to oppose the big 6 and openly vote against them. In the past they've always just gone with them and most new rules have passed virtually unchallenged, the vote today implies that the worm has well and truly turned and there's appetite for huge changes and the PL can't say they never saw it coming. The way they've handled the FFP breaches at Everton, Forest and City have been a shambles. This is just the start of the small 14 pushing back and rejecting what is being pushed upon them Darren Eales is a very clever bloke, working for very clever owners (PIF/Reubens/Staveley) and it was - if you follow the recent events backwards - his clear comments that even we (the perceived "richest club in the world") would have to sell players because of the FFP/PSR restrictions that have led us to where we are today. That statement, which was also gleefully misinterpreted by the media to mean us having to sell our "big" players, sent literal SHOCK waves around the football world and started the snowball of "FFP is not fit for purpose" discussions we have been having ever since, along with the Forest and Everton penalties of course. WE are very G O O D (I know that) and this is just the next step that our very, very, clever owners are taking. There will be more! Edited April 29 by manorpark Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mazzy Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 1 minute ago, Ronson333 said: Liverpool and Man Utd fans working out it benefits us more than anyone else 😀. It’s probably a bigger day for us than many of us realise. https://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=297245.1920 https://www.redcafe.net/threads/premier-league-clubs-have-agreed-in-principle-to-introduce-a-spending-cap.482447/#post-31889473 Aren't they just assuming that with these changes comes the "luxury tax" rule whereby you just pay a fine for breaking rules rather than points deductions. I don't think that's ever been confirmed anywhere so far. Obviously if true that does benefit us but then you have to ask why Manchester City/Utd and Villa voted against it if so. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sima Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 Liverpool fans are such wankers, man. As if they didn't get a leg up in the past due to Littlewoods way before financial regulations were a twinkle in English football's eye. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaztoon Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 Just now, Mazzy said: Aren't they just assuming that with these changes comes the "luxury tax" rule whereby you just pay a fine for breaking rules rather than points deductions. I don't think that's ever been confirmed anywhere so far. Obviously if true that does benefit us but then you have to ask why Manchester City/Utd and Villa voted against it if so. Que new euro super League threats. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
timeEd32 Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 16 minutes ago, Decky said: More rules to just complicate the game further. This rule runs alongside this other rule but if you finish high enough in the league you'll be in another competition so those two previous rules have to then run alongside these other rules that you have now also have to follow. It must be an absolute mind fuck running a football club these days. Go back to the days of letting clubs just spend what they want or change the rules to allow owners to invest their own money into the club but protect it from crippling debts. Were clubs going out of business left right and centre before these rules? I don't think they were. Most people who own a club want a return on their investment, not run the thing into the ground and lose millions. Seems to me like the Premier League (the league itself to be clear) is missing an opportunity to absolve itself of much of the burden of this regulation. It would be so much simpler for them if they just had a couple basic rules with transparent penalties. One could mimic UEFA's Solvency pillar, which has to do with overdue payments (this could be a genuinely good rule to protect the viability of football clubs). The second could be this anchoring-based spending cap, which puts a (very high) ceiling on the top end to at least maintain a cloak of competitiveness. The rest of it just leave to UEFA. The top 7-ish clubs at minimum would have to abide by UEFA's more stringent rules and, in reality, almost everyone would have to be thinking about it or be prepared to forfeit their place in a European competition. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
midds Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 2 minutes ago, Sima said: Liverpool fans are such wankers, man. As if they didn't get a leg up in the past due to Littlewoods way before financial regulations were a twinkle in English football's eye. Best thing Souness ever did in his career was to completely demolish the Boot Room as soon as he got the job down there. Just destroyed decades of culture and continuity overnight and it put them back 20 years. It was fucking brilliant Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackie Broon Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 15 minutes ago, et tu brute said: UEFA rules I imagine will fall in line. It's all down to increased sponsorship/commercial deals anyway. There is fundamentally a requirement to increase revenue. I doubt it because of the influence the likles of PSG and Real Madrid and it limits top PL's clubs spending rather thna giving them any advantage. In terms of FMV it seems that UEFA have been less strict than the PL in scrutinising deals. And the PL were planning to bring a new FMV rule that would switch the burden of proof from the PL to the clubs to prove that deals are fair market value rather than the PL prove that they are not. That possibly would have been a killer for us. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
et tu brute Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 4 minutes ago, Jackie Broon said: I doubt it because of the influence the likles of PSG and Real Madrid and it limits top PL's clubs spending rather thna giving them any advantage. In terms of FMV it seems that UEFA have been less strict than the PL in scrutinising deals. And the PL were planning to bring a new FMV rule that would switch the burden of proof from the PL to the clubs to prove that deals are fair market value rather than the PL prove that they are not. That possibly would have been a killer for us. Nearly all of the euro teams are totally fucked financially. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackie Broon Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 (edited) 3 minutes ago, et tu brute said: Nearly all of the euro teams are totally fucked financially. Aye, yet UEFA aren't handing out lots of FFP breach charges like the PL are under what are, on paper, currently more lenient rules. Edited April 29 by Jackie Broon Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 18 minutes ago, Sima said: Liverpool fans are such wankers, man. As if they didn't get a leg up in the past due to Littlewoods way before financial regulations were a twinkle in English football's eye. I think the British courts bailed them out during the Hicks and Gillett ownership fiascoas well, Liverpool is too much of an institution to be allowed to go to the dogs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
et tu brute Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 3 minutes ago, Jackie Broon said: Aye, yet UEFA aren't handing out lots of FFP breach charges like the PL are under what are, on paper, currently more lenient rules. That is true mind just fines. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUPERTOON Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 BBC take on it- https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/cpegd3dy8j7o Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
STM Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 Someone please explain the difference between the old rules and the new rules but explain it like you are talking to an 8 year old. Also in a nutshell, is this good news for us? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
manorpark Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 (edited) 15 minutes ago, STM said: Someone please explain the difference between the old rules and the new rules but explain it like you are talking to an 8 year old. Also in a nutshell, is this good news for us? YES - we led the whole thing. This change is the very first proposed policy change by the Premier League since our Takeover, that has NOT come "directly out of" the we must STOP-NEWCASTLE-UNITED Premier League Committee Room !!! Edited April 29 by manorpark Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
STM Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 Just seen the BBC article. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abacus Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 27 minutes ago, Jackie Broon said: ...And the PL were planning to bring a new FMV rule that would switch the burden of proof from the PL to the clubs to prove that deals are fair market value rather than the PL prove that they are not. That possibly would have been a killer for us. Those are the current rules, clarified earlier this year https://www.sportindustry.biz/news-categories/news/new-premier-league-rules-faces-opposition/ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Prophet Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 The BBC seem to be the only outlet claiming it wouldn't run alongside PSR. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
timeEd32 Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 The BBC article definitely seems to suggest that this spending cap would be instead of the current / proposed changes to PSR, which would be a massive difference. No idea if that's based on real information or just a massive assumption they are making. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abacus Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 That BBC article doesn't seem right. For one thing, it's claiming us and Villa would benefit from it. Who was one of the three to vote against it? Oh yes, Villa Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronson333 Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 21 minutes ago, SUPERTOON said: BBC take on it- https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/cpegd3dy8j7o Remember this is co-written by Simon Stone and he’s a massive Man Utd bitch. 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