FLUMPO235 Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 Plus it’s totally anti competition as those below can never catch up. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scoot Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 1 minute ago, healthyaddiction said: A new rule to show clubs in Europe to spend more, just as we're confirmed as not being in Europe. Surely it's all clubs can make an extra 30 million loss? Why would Palace bring it forward if it didn't mean that?? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 1 minute ago, healthyaddiction said: A new rule to show clubs in Europe to spend more, just as we're confirmed as not being in Europe. And proposed by a club who arr unlikely to be regulars in Europe for it to matter to them. Smells a fishy as a seals nose. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
80 Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 Need the article text, people... Isn't this just the thing about increasing the allowance in line with inflation? And it applies to all clubs? Certainly a pisser that it didn't apply last season, mind... This January would've been very different. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FLUMPO235 Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 Is he by any chance a member of Jim rattcliffe’s Freemasons lodge Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 (edited) 2 minutes ago, 80 said: Need the article text, people... Isn't this just the thing about increasing the allowance in line with inflation? And it applies to all clubs? Certainly a pisser that it didn't apply last season, mind... This January would've been very different. How could some club not in Europe use the coefficient difference as a write off ? Need the text like you say. I did ask straight away. Edited May 28 by madras Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
duo Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 47 minutes ago, SUPERTOON said: How corrupt are these rules... Quote Uefa’s coefficient payments are based on a club’s past ten years of results in European competitions. For the 2023-24 season, for example, Manchester City received £28million while Newcastle United were given only £3.8million. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 Just now, duo said: How corrupt are these rules... Man utd got more for getting a point less than us. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stifler Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 (edited) Premier League clubs will be asked next week to agree to new financial proposals aimed at boosting English sides’ competitiveness in Europe. The proposal, put forward by Crystal Palace, aims to give clubs such as Aston Villa — who were surprise qualifiers for the Champions League — more flexibility around spending and financial losses. Uefa’s coefficient payments are based on a club’s past ten years of results in European competitions. For the 2023-24 season, for example, Manchester City received £28million while Newcastle United were given only £3.8million. Aston Villa will be in a similar position to Newcastle next season after qualifying for the Champions League for the first time since 1983. Palace’s proposal, which targets the “artificial” impact of those coefficient payments, would alter the Premier League’s Profitability and Sustainability Rules (PSR), allowing clubs to claim the difference in coefficient funding between themselves and the top club in Europe as allowable losses. That could allow Villa, who are believed to be close to the line in terms of breaching PSR’s maximum £105million losses over three years, an extra £20million-£30million in allowable financial losses. Newcastle, who failed to get out of the Champions League group stage, have claimed they were hamstrung in the tournament by needing to keep within PSR limits. Palace’s chairman, Steve Parish, has long argued that Uefa’s coefficient payments are unfair and, unlike the Premier League’s payments structure, are not based on merit according to the season just played. The proposal will go to the Premier League’s annual meeting next week, where — as revealed by The Times this month — Villa will also try to convince clubs to raise the PSR limit from £105million to £135million. The move by Palace is regarded as an alternative plan that would help Villa but not change the general PSR limit. Uefa is reducing the size of coefficient payments for the new Champions League format that starts next season but it is still not clear exactly what they will be. The Premier League’s annual meeting near Harrogate will also vote on a proposal by Wolverhampton Wanderers to scrap VAR. Although most clubs are expected to vote against Wolves, there is a general sympathy with some of the points raised by the club. Wolves have sent a six-page document to the other 19 clubs in support of their proposal. It claims VAR is damaging the reputation of the league. The document states: “Since the introduction of VAR, we are giving oxygen to those who suggest that the Premier League and PGMOL [Professional Game Match Officials Limited, the referees’ body] are corrupt, and this is damaging the reputation of our league. “Under the current version of VAR, it’s impossible to solve the problem because people often distrust referees who are far removed from the pitch and cannot experience the game as those present do. “The involvement of multiple referees in decision-making increases suspicion of corruption, as accountability is dispersed, making it easier to shift blame. Fans also expect technology to be 100 per cent accurate and when VAR fails to meet this expectation, it’s harder to justify and explain the inaccuracies, leading to greater dissatisfaction and mistrust.” Edited May 28 by Stifler Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack27 Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 1 minute ago, Stifler said: [qoute] Premier League clubs will be asked next week to agree to new financial proposals aimed at boosting English sides’ competitiveness in Europe. The proposal, put forward by Crystal Palace, aims to give clubs such as Aston Villa — who were surprise qualifiers for the Champions League — more flexibility around spending and financial losses. Uefa’s coefficient payments are based on a club’s past ten years of results in European competitions. For the 2023-24 season, for example, Manchester City received £28million while Newcastle United were given only £3.8million. Aston Villa will be in a similar position to Newcastle next season after qualifying for the Champions League for the first time since 1983. Palace’s proposal, which targets the “artificial” impact of those coefficient payments, would alter the Premier League’s Profitability and Sustainability Rules (PSR), allowing clubs to claim the difference in coefficient funding between themselves and the top club in Europe as allowable losses. That could allow Villa, who are believed to be close to the line in terms of breaching PSR’s maximum £105million losses over three years, an extra £20million-£30million in allowable financial losses. Newcastle, who failed to get out of the Champions League group stage, have claimed they were hamstrung in the tournament by needing to keep within PSR limits. Palace’s chairman, Steve Parish, has long argued that Uefa’s coefficient payments are unfair and, unlike the Premier League’s payments structure, are not based on merit according to the season just played. The proposal will go to the Premier League’s annual meeting next week, where — as revealed by The Times this month — Villa will also try to convince clubs to raise the PSR limit from £105million to £135million. The move by Palace is regarded as an alternative plan that would help Villa but not change the general PSR limit. Uefa is reducing the size of coefficient payments for the new Champions League format that starts next season but it is still not clear exactly what they will be. The Premier League’s annual meeting near Harrogate will also vote on a proposal by Wolverhampton Wanderers to scrap VAR. Although most clubs are expected to vote against Wolves, there is a general sympathy with some of the points raised by the club. Wolves have sent a six-page document to the other 19 clubs in support of their proposal. It claims VAR is damaging the reputation of the league. The document states: “Since the introduction of VAR, we are giving oxygen to those who suggest that the Premier League and PGMOL [Professional Game Match Officials Limited, the referees’ body] are corrupt, and this is damaging the reputation of our league. “Under the current version of VAR, it’s impossible to solve the problem because people often distrust referees who are far removed from the pitch and cannot experience the game as those present do. “The involvement of multiple referees in decision-making increases suspicion of corruption, as accountability is dispersed, making it easier to shift blame. Fans also expect technology to be 100 per cent accurate and when VAR fails to meet this expectation, it’s harder to justify and explain the inaccuracies, leading to greater dissatisfaction and mistrust.”[/quote] I am calling corruption Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
80 Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 Ok then This whole FFP situation is a farce... I think our club would support the proposal, incidentally. We'll anticipate benefiting from it in the near future + anything to intensify the friction around the ludicrous regulations. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Prophet Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 Why are Palace of all clubs proposing this? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bally21 Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 4 minutes ago, Stifler said: Premier League clubs will be asked next week to agree to new financial proposals aimed at boosting English sides’ competitiveness in Europe. The proposal, put forward by Crystal Palace, aims to give clubs such as Aston Villa — who were surprise qualifiers for the Champions League — more flexibility around spending and financial losses. Uefa’s coefficient payments are based on a club’s past ten years of results in European competitions. For the 2023-24 season, for example, Manchester City received £28million while Newcastle United were given only £3.8million. Aston Villa will be in a similar position to Newcastle next season after qualifying for the Champions League for the first time since 1983. Palace’s proposal, which targets the “artificial” impact of those coefficient payments, would alter the Premier League’s Profitability and Sustainability Rules (PSR), allowing clubs to claim the difference in coefficient funding between themselves and the top club in Europe as allowable losses. That could allow Villa, who are believed to be close to the line in terms of breaching PSR’s maximum £105million losses over three years, an extra £20million-£30million in allowable financial losses. Newcastle, who failed to get out of the Champions League group stage, have claimed they were hamstrung in the tournament by needing to keep within PSR limits. Palace’s chairman, Steve Parish, has long argued that Uefa’s coefficient payments are unfair and, unlike the Premier League’s payments structure, are not based on merit according to the season just played. The proposal will go to the Premier League’s annual meeting next week, where — as revealed by The Times this month — Villa will also try to convince clubs to raise the PSR limit from £105million to £135million. The move by Palace is regarded as an alternative plan that would help Villa but not change the general PSR limit. Uefa is reducing the size of coefficient payments for the new Champions League format that starts next season but it is still not clear exactly what they will be. The Premier League’s annual meeting near Harrogate will also vote on a proposal by Wolverhampton Wanderers to scrap VAR. Although most clubs are expected to vote against Wolves, there is a general sympathy with some of the points raised by the club. Wolves have sent a six-page document to the other 19 clubs in support of their proposal. It claims VAR is damaging the reputation of the league. The document states: “Since the introduction of VAR, we are giving oxygen to those who suggest that the Premier League and PGMOL [Professional Game Match Officials Limited, the referees’ body] are corrupt, and this is damaging the reputation of our league. “Under the current version of VAR, it’s impossible to solve the problem because people often distrust referees who are far removed from the pitch and cannot experience the game as those present do. “The involvement of multiple referees in decision-making increases suspicion of corruption, as accountability is dispersed, making it easier to shift blame. Fans also expect technology to be 100 per cent accurate and when VAR fails to meet this expectation, it’s harder to justify and explain the inaccuracies, leading to greater dissatisfaction and mistrust.” I would read this as villa, for example, could claim the difference between their coefficient revenue, and that of the European club with the highest coefficient value - probably real Madrid - so it would be of a big benefit to villa, but very little to say man City as their coefficient payments will be a lot closer to Madrid's. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 Just now, Bally21 said: I would read this as villa, for example, could claim the difference between their coefficient revenue, and that of the European club with the highest coefficient value - probably real Madrid - so it would be of a big benefit to villa, but very little to say man City as their coefficient payments will be a lot closer to Madrid's. And no benefit to any clubs not in Europe. In fact it's to their detriment. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitley mag Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 2 minutes ago, 80 said: Ok then This whole FFP situation is a farce... I think our club would support the proposal, incidentally. We'll anticipate benefiting from it in the near future + anything to intensify the friction around the ludicrous regulations. Soon as we benefit the rules will be changed straight back. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bally21 Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 (edited) 4 minutes ago, madras said: And no benefit to any clubs not in Europe. In fact it's to their detriment. Yes definitely. Clubs outside of Europe zero benifit. Toxic 6, a lot less benefit than villa, but some. Villa and any club in their situation going forward (maybe us) - major benifit. Edited May 28 by Bally21 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scoot Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 3 minutes ago, Whitley mag said: Soon as we benefit the rules will be changed straight back. Exactly. If we qualify next season they'll be another proposal from someone suggesting it's anti-competitive to clubs not in Europe and it'll be scrapped instantly. All these rule changes since our takeover are quite obviously aimed at us and its actually baffling me as to why we're doing nothing at all about it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 Absolutely sick of all this picking at the carcass. Just fucking bury it and be done with it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 It couldn’t possibly be any more blatant could it..? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PauloGeordio Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 3 minutes ago, Unbelievable said: It couldn’t possibly be any more blatant could it..? It couldn’t! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
80 Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 13 minutes ago, Whitley mag said: Soon as we benefit the rules will be changed straight back. Quite possibly... Which would be pretty fiery evidence if we ever are serious about bringing a court case over anticompetitive practice. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stifler Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 18 minutes ago, The Prophet said: Why are Palace of all clubs proposing this? Because they are in a bit of limbo with no clarity from the Premier League over m how they can finance their new stand. The Everton situation has thrown it all up in the the air, and if it’s true that interest on loans for stadium/infrastructure is not detectable, then they may need that extra £20m per year to finance their new stand. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 Profit and sustainability rules !!! Our owners could probably make us challenge for the title with a day's profits, what's more sustainable than that ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Prophet Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 Just now, Stifler said: Because they are in a bit of limbo with no clarity from the Premier League over m how they can finance their new stand. The Everton situation has thrown it all up in the the air, and if it’s true that interest on loans for stadium/infrastructure is not detectable, then they may need that extra £20m per year to finance their new stand. If I'm not mistaken, it only applied to clubs in Europe? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gdm Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 its becoming a farce and ruining the game 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