Financial Fair Play / Profit & Sustainability

[McDog]

Just now, r0cafella said:

No need to problem solve solutions the rules are created by design to prevent any competition and lock in the status quo. 

 

Clubs on the whole do not want to have to compete it's as simple as that. 

 

 

 

At this point it's more of an academic exercise.  

[Cf]

1 minute ago, McDog said:

 

 

Salary cap is the only way to even it. I do see the inflation point. Maybe you have a hard top limit on transfers in a calendar year? Complete unfettered spending would be a problem, I see that.

 

Salary cap across the squad. Not on any one individual player to prevent that argument, but across the squad as a whole. 

 

Proof that you can afford that salary. (Which the vast majority of PL clubs should be able to if set right)

 

Not hard surely if the aim is fair play?

[McDog]

Just now, Cf said:

 

Salary cap across the squad. Not on any one individual player to prevent that argument, but across the squad as a whole. 

 

Proof that you can afford that salary. (Which the vast majority of PL clubs should be able to if set right)

 

Not hard surely if the aim is fair play?

 

 

Require the money be put in escrow at the start of the season or you can only register the players you can escrow with your cash.

 

 

Edited Sunday at 23:59 by McDog

[Jackie Broon]

4 minutes ago, Abacus said:

 

Aye. The Brown Bottle is right though that the one legitimate reason it is there for is to stop rampant cost inflation - since even with the escrow solution, wealthy owners could just put £1bn into escrow, and still blow everyone else out of the water.

 

That's the bit that's hard to argue around, and where other fans could feel rightly aggrieved. And how we would feel in their shoes. So yeah, the way to fix that is a salary cap on everyone, which would also be legally dubious, even if fairer from a sporting point of view.

 

 

 

 

I get that argument, but I'm not sure that's what would happen in reality. It's not like the current situation has prevented cost inflation. At the moment all that is happening it that the transfer market has stalled rather than player costs coming down. More clubs competing at the top and more money coming into the game can probably only be a good thing (well, other than for those clubs already at the top).

 

 

[Abacus]

4 minutes ago, McDog said:

 

 

Salary cap is the only way to even it. I do see the inflation point. Maybe you have a hard top limit on transfers in a calendar year? Complete unfettered spending would be a problem, I see that.

 

Yeah agreed, but no easy answers, since I think a salary cap would be disputed as illegal. But, leaving legalities aside, practically it's probably the best way I'd agree, linked with an escrow type system to stop clubs going bust.

 

I just kind of wish they weren't asleep at the wheel when Chelsea and Man City did it, and only woke up when there was a chance we might go further. You could go back before that to find other examples, like Blackburn etc as a point of principle, but I cite those two as when you started needing HUGE money to compete.

[McDog]

Just now, Jackie Broon said:

 

I get that argument, but I'm not sure that's what would happen in reality. It's not like the current situation has prevented cost inflation. At the moment all that is happening it that the transfer market has stalled rather than player costs coming down. More clubs competing at the top and more money coming into the game can probably only be a good thing (well, other than for those clubs already at the top).

 

 

 

 

Good point. It didn't right away because Newcastle had money due to profits leading up to the takeover. Once the PL started turning the screws to stop Newcastle by rules, threats, and actions, it had a knock on effect.

[Abacus]

2 minutes ago, Jackie Broon said:

 

I get that argument, but I'm not sure that's what would happen in reality. It's not like the current situation has prevented cost inflation. At the moment all that is happening it that the transfer market has stalled rather than player costs coming down. More clubs competing at the top and more money coming into the game can probably only be a good thing (well, other than for those clubs already at the top).

 

 

 

Well, yes agreed. And of course the PL doesn't exist in a vacuum and are in danger of losing out to other leagues including the Saudi League etc. So I think all it really does is stifle the PL.

 

Seems like a massive clash between US owners wanting returns and other owners wanting prestige. I think the whole league loses out by cutting out sustainable investment, and that also has a knock on to all clubs within it. 

 

I'm really not disagreeing, was just wondering how we'd feel if Leeds, say, had been bought by Qatar, we were still under Ashley and there were no rules at all.

[NWMag]

Another reason why PSR is not fit for purpose occurred to me today. 
 

As unlikely a situation as it is for us, it could happen to other teams I.e Villa when they cashed in on Grealish. 
 

say hypothetically FFP year 24/25 we make £200 million profit. Then we don’t spend anything for 25/26 and 26/27. By 27/28, that £200 million profit doesn’t exist any more (for FFP), even though the money is still in the bank.

 

or even if we made £200 million profit in 24/25, and spent it all 25/26 and spent £0 in 26/27, we’d be even in terms of the accounts - but for FFP 27/28 the £200 million would drop off, and we’d be £200 million in the red and breaching.
 

How is that a measure of sustainability? 
 

there are so many different reasons as to why the rules don’t make sense, it really needs highlighting in depth by multiple people within football who have a big following & whose views are respected. 

[r0cafella]

7 minutes ago, NWMag said:

Another reason why PSR is not fit for purpose occurred to me today. 
 

As unlikely a situation as it is for us, it could happen to other teams I.e Villa when they cashed in on Grealish. 
 

say hypothetically FFP year 24/25 we make £200 million profit. Then we don’t spend anything for 25/26 and 26/27. By 27/28, that £200 million profit doesn’t exist any more (for FFP), even though the money is still in the bank.

 

or even if we made £200 million profit in 24/25, and spent it all 25/26 and spent £0 in 26/27, we’d be even in terms of the accounts - but for FFP 27/28 the £200 million would drop off, and we’d be £200 million in the red and breaching.
 

How is that a measure of sustainability? 
 

there are so many different reasons as to why the rules don’t make sense, it really needs highlighting in depth by multiple people within football who have a big following & whose views are respected. 

Bro don't do it to yourself. PSR has absolutely nothing to do with sustainability that's just how it was sold. It's an anti competitive ruleset designed solely to maintain a status quo. 

 

 

[Miggys First Goal]

Fuck PSR. 

[TRon]

10 hours ago, McDog said:

 

 

Salary cap is the only way to even it. I do see the inflation point. Maybe you have a hard top limit on transfers in a calendar year? Complete unfettered spending would be a problem, I see that.

 

 

That's why the whole thing is bullshit. What are the chances of a salary cap happening in today's world? Probably the best chance of the PL or any other UEFA body being hit by a legal challenge. The only way PSR gets removed any time soon is if clubs start losing players to other leagues because no one wants to pay daft transfer fees any more, or spend any money at all on players approaching 30. Football's value is being degraded. Might be seen as a good thing eventually, but the PL can probably kiss goodbye to all those lovely tv rights windfalls further down the line.

[Groundhog63]

3 minutes ago, TRon said:

 

 

That's why the whole thing is bullshit. What are the chances of a salary cap happening in today's world? Probably the best chance of the PL or any other UEFA body being hit by a legal challenge. The only way PSR gets removed any time soon is if clubs start losing players to other leagues because no one wants to pay daft transfer fees any more, or spend any money at all on players approaching 30. Football's value is being degraded. Might be seen as a good thing eventually, but the PL can probably kiss goodbye to all those lovely tv rights windfalls further down the line.

Which is why the Yanks want an ESL leading to a WSL

[Stifler]

We won’t get a salary cap, both ECHR and British law would be on it if a salary cap was introduced.

Also the Premier League would be terrified that a league such as La Liga would become more dominant overtime.

[AngelofTheFourth]

8 hours ago, r0cafella said:

Bro don't do it to yourself. PSR has absolutely nothing to do with sustainability that's just how it was sold. It's an anti competitive ruleset designed solely to maintain a status quo. 

 

 

It has everything to do with sustainably. The PSR title is completely correct. It's to sustain the status que via the ridiculous (commercial) profits the cartel make.

 

Its perfectly doing its job. In making sure the big 6 are never really a threat of being in the permanent dangerous position. The will have the odd season outside the top 6 but will be straight back in it, their performance doesn't affect the revenue like it does with the other14.

[The College Dropout]

Believe salary cap idea was defeated in the football league by the PFA. Salary cap is a crazy idea anyway imo.

 

The revenue to player cost and transfer idea is a soft version of a salary cap and a better idea for sustainability.

 

I prefer the anchoring idea where if owners want to go over a certain limit of their revenue - they need to have funds proven. And an upper limit for everyone if you can prove the funds are there.

[Stifler]

1 hour ago, Groundhog63 said:

Which is why the Yanks want an ESL leading to a WSL

The yanks want a closed Premier League and possibly a closed ESL because it guarantees them money. No chance of going down.

 

To put things into perspective, the new San Diego MLS franchise owners paid the same amount to the MLS for the franchise rights, than Everton were sold for. The Everton deal included paying off all their debt, a new stadium, the training ground, the staff, the players, and one of the longest established fanbases in the sport.

The San Diego deal was just for the right to start a team in the city. Everything else has to be added on top of that.

 

 

Edited yesterday at 11:37 by Stifler

[The College Dropout]

3 minutes ago, Stifler said:

We won’t get a salary cap, both ECHR and British law would be on it if a salary cap was introduced.

Also the Premier League would be terrified that a league such as La Liga would become more dominant overtime.

La Liga has a salary cap funnily enough. It also entrenches the status quo. Real should win La Liga more often than they do - their salary cap is close to 2x second place iirc. Although Barca max theirs and beyond and Real don't.

[Stifler]

3 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

La Liga has a salary cap funnily enough. It also entrenches the status quo. Real should win La Liga more often than they do - their salary cap is close to 2x second place iirc. Although Barca max theirs and beyond and Real don't.

If the Premier League introduced a salary cap though, La Liga would just increase theirs to above ours, just so that they could get that competitive edge over us.

 

I don’t see how a salary cap would work,,as you have already said, the anchoring is the way to go about it.

[HawK]

Not sure if this is anchoring, but I think an idea is for every pound you spend over your available self-generated funds, you put another pound in a contigency escrow. You can't spend the pound without putting a pound in the contigency.

 

The contingency is a managed fund that in the event of a change of ownership, or after 10 years or another arbitrary amount of time, the full fund matures and pays off all 'debt ' incurred as a result of spending past self-generated turnover. Profits on the fund are reinvested in infrastructure or local community or distributed to other PL clubs.

 

Of course this doesn't in any way protect the established elite so won't ever be chosen.

[Stifler]

Just now, HawK said:

Not sure if this is anchoring, but I think an idea is for every pound you spend over your available self-generated funds, you put another pound in a contigency escrow. You can't spend the pound without putting a pound in the contigency.

 

The contingency is a managed fund that in the event of a change of ownership, or after 10 years or another arbitrary amount of time, the full fund matures and pays off all 'debt ' incurred as a result of spending past self-generated turnover. Profits on the fund are reinvested in infrastructure or local community or distributed to other PL clubs.

 

Of course this doesn't in any way protect the established elite so won't ever be chosen.

This is anchoring, well you can change what happens to the money after certain amount of time, but basically that’s what anchoring does, and it was rejected by the top 6, Man City aside.

[Cf]

Salary cap is easy to do surely. 

 

You make it across the entire squad rather than on an individual. 

 

No-one is being paid £5m per week (or whatever you set it at).

 

PFA might object but I don't see what is legally questionable about it. 

[r0cafella]

54 minutes ago, Cf said:

Salary cap is easy to do surely. 

 

You make it across the entire squad rather than on an individual. 

 

No-one is being paid £5m per week (or whatever you set it at).

 

PFA might object but I don't see what is legally questionable about it. 

If I heard correctly the PFA have a collective bargaining agreement which prohibits them. 

[Stal]

The rules do seem to really do the dirty on players approaching/past 30 years old. I know it's not direct discrimination but it is affecting their potential transfers thus stifling them in favour of younger players. And even without the protected characteristic of age being brought into the question, it has a monetary consideration; they won't be as able to capitalise on a good contract, their agents won't be able to command their stupid fees (which should be paid by the player not the club, but that's another rant) which is going to cause upset and if the money isn't there then there will be almighty kick offs. 

 

It also stifles grass roots as the only way any footballer is going to be signed by a club in a higher division is if he's 18 and already a Messi regen.

 

I don't think there shouldn't be rules in place, but ones that stop teams who want to compete so that certain teams stay at the top unchallenged is just bullshit. If your Red Cartel cuck teams don't want to compete and just make up the numbers then fine, but don't vote in rules that stop others challenging the status quo.

[The College Dropout]

1 hour ago, Stifler said:

If the Premier League introduced a salary cap though, La Liga would just increase theirs to above ours, just so that they could get that competitive edge over us.

 

I don’t see how a salary cap would work,,as you have already said, the anchoring is the way to go about it.

Wages in Spain (outside the big 3) are way lower than the PL anyway. Real already have the highest (i think) wage bill in Europe. The cap is club specific based. Barcelona continue to sign everyone anyway.

 

1 hour ago, Cf said:

Salary cap is easy to do surely. 

 

You make it across the entire squad rather than on an individual. 

 

No-one is being paid £5m per week (or whatever you set it at).

 

PFA might object but I don't see what is legally questionable about it. 

PFA already beat it in football league. The precedent is set, it's a non-starter. It's a shit idea anyway. If revenues aren't capped, why should salaries be capped? Any kind of anchoring or squad cost metric is a soft cap and better imo.

 

The idea of salary caps is an American import. Elite American sports are all cartels to the benefit of billionaire owners. 

[The Prophet]

Is it this summer that they do away with the current PSR rules?