Everton, surely a points deduction?

[Black Country Wanderer]

It doesnt matter that rules are changing,they were broken at that time
Its like FFP didnt exist when Man Utd Man City Chelsea etc were spending billions,but it does exist now, so we can retrospectively charge them all with breaking the rules that didnt exist lol
You cant get out of jail free if you committed the offence knowing the rules at that time, no matter what the future rules will be, which no one knows yet anyway

 

[Plovdiv Wolf]

Did club vote new rules?

 

[SingYourHeartsOut]

I think the Premier League are considering increasing the allowed losses as the amount of tv money has vastly increased since they set it at 105 million. However the rules were the rules at that time so not sure how its a bit rich. It would be like saying we should go back and give a free kick for every time the keepers used to pick up a back pass

My wife got done for speeding once, 34 in a 30. About 6 months later they increased the speed limit on the road to 40. She moaned every time we went past the sign for years after. Oddly it didn't prove to be grounds for appeal.

 

[Black Country Wanderer]

Did club vote new rules?

Not yet theres a meeting this month i believe

 

[Plovdiv Wolf]

Not yet theres a meeting this month i believe

Premier money increases, I think increase the limit. New rules make harder smaller clubs. Not very fair.

For to be fair. The level has to be equal same for every club in the league. I think maybe that too sensible?

 

[wolvesjoe]

I think the Premier League are considering increasing the allowed losses as the amount of tv money has vastly increased since they set it at 105 million. However the rules were the rules at that time so not sure how its a bit rich. It would be like saying we should go back and give a free kick for every time the keepers used to pick up a back pass

I am not sure.

Wolfgar and I have debatted this and no firm conclusions reached. The allowable losses seems unlikely, however, as they do not, or cannot, come into play because of the salary and transfers cap of 70%.

In other words, if teams only spend around 70% of their turnover on players' costs, then it is very, very unlikely that they will operate at a loss. Turnover has increased so much over the last 10-15 years that operating costs inevitably come to be a lower % component of overall costs.

Clubs will have substantial annual income that they cannot use on players' costs.

Partly this will fund the next generation of stadia expansion and improvement. But it is very important to recall that this kind of spending does not impact on FFP regulations. Infrastructural spending is exempt from FFP consideration, so long as it is an equity input from the owners, and not just repayable from income.

It seems that clubs will, at least, be partly able to fund infrastructural development through through direct profits.

If, however, the eventual salary cap is raised to 80%, then some of these considerations do not apply.

 

[Black Country Wanderer]

Premier money increases, I think increase the limit. New rules make harder smaller clubs. Not very fair.

For to be fair. The level has to be equal same for every club in the league. I think maybe that too sensible?

Well the rules are the same for every club
Its just the top 6 clubs are just way ahead of everyone else with income so this 90% 80% 70% threshold will only serve to increase the gap between them and the rest,but i guess thats more like what they are after anyway

 

[SingYourHeartsOut]

Am I missing something here? If the PL maintain their PSR, or even increase the allowed losses, how is that going to work with the UEFA rules.

e.g. a team turning over £200m will be able to spend (ignoring allowable expenses) £705m+ over 3 seasons in the PL, but £420m for UEFA.

Anything apart from just aligning with UEFA makes no sense to me.

 

[Black Country Wanderer]

Am I missing something here? If the PL maintain their PSR, or even increase the allowed losses, how is that going to work with the UEFA rules.

e.g. a team turning over £200m will be able to spend (ignoring allowable expenses) £705m+ over 3 seasons in the PL, but £420m for UEFA.

Anything apart from just aligning with UEFA makes no sense to me.

Well thats the intention,alignment of 70% of total revenue
Just it will take 3 years to get there,well everyone is assuming that anyway

 

[glorybox]

Condemning Everton and Forest a bit rich when rules set to be scrapped

Changing profit and sustainability rules in August is a tacit admission that, in the present state, they are no longer fit for purpose

www.thetimes.co.uk

Still not sure what Samuel is referring to here.

Less stringent cap, 80,,% rather than 70%?

Any ideas?

As @theweave has said the rules probably are too stringent now and need updating but you can't retrospectively apply any increase just because "The Grand Old Club" have fallen foul of them.

 

[wolvesjoe]

Am I missing something here? If the PL maintain their PSR, or even increase the allowed losses, how is that going to work with the UEFA rules.

e.g. a team turning over £200m will be able to spend (ignoring allowable expenses) £705m+ over 3 seasons in the PL, but £420m for UEFA.

Anything apart from just aligning with UEFA makes no sense to me.

As I understand it, PSR has priority, which means effectively that clubs will not make any allowed losses, as operating costs will be more than covered by the 30%.

This is why it is such a revolution in how football finances are going to be run.

That is, however, only if the final version of PSR is not heavily diluted, and we have a higher salary/transfer fee cap, and the situation then remains closer
to what we have had for the past 10 years.

 

[Black Country Wanderer]

Am I missing something here? If the PL maintain their PSR, or even increase the allowed losses, how is that going to work with the UEFA rules.

e.g. a team turning over £200m will be able to spend (ignoring allowable expenses) £705m+ over 3 seasons in the PL, but £420m for UEFA.

Anything apart from just aligning with UEFA makes no sense to me.

The way i understand it, if your total revenue is £200m next year you can lose up to £180m, then £160m, then £140m on the scale being touted at the moment, so £580m over nest 3 years
Im as confused as the next guy mind so stand to be corrected

 

[SingYourHeartsOut]

The way i understand it, if your total revenue is £200m next year you can lose up to £180m, then £160m, then £140m on the scale being touted at the moment, so £580m over nest 3 years
Im as confused as the next guy mind so stand to be corrected

Not lose though, spend. Also it adds up to £480m £480m is a hell of a cut from £705m even over e years, and that's still running a year behind UEFA (I think!)

 

[Black Country Wanderer]

Not lose though, spend. Also it adds up to £480m £480m is a hell of a cut from £705m even over e years, and that's still running a year behind UEFA (I think!)

Whichever way you look at it the gap will just widen
We are around that £200 mil turnover Man C and the rest are circa £6-800m lol so their spending power will just take off

 

[theweave]

Personally I think owners should be allowed to invest as much as they like but the premier league should say they have to be gifts not loans if they are above the allowed limit

 

[Flump]

We are around that £200 mil turnover Man C and the rest are circa £6-800m lol so their spending power will just take off

However you cut it, a club with an £800m income should be able to outspend one with a £200m income.

 

[Plovdiv Wolf]

However you cut it, a club with an £800m income should be able to outspend one with a £200m income.

Not equal which means not fair. The law is called financial fair play. Make up as go along

 

[Halesowen wwfc]

Its the amortisation that will be included in the percentage of turnover, not the total cost of the player bought. I.e. cunha at 10m a year as opposed to 40m going straight off your allowable spend. This is where someone like nots forest are gonna have severe difficulties as their whole squad is amortising at the same rate. It will really encourage clubs to bring players through their youth systems as it will innevitably reduce clubs ability to spend, even though they may have the funds to spend. Can see going forwards far more players allowing their contracts to end as the movement of players while in contracts will be hampered with these new regulations as clubs just wont be able to make it work within the new thresholds. Even the top 6 will be impacted. Their wage bills and amortisiation costs are significantly higher than the rest as they play in a different pond. Look at man utd now. Highest wage bill, big spend each year, to where now they have no ability to spend. It could go back to the 90s where there was one or two big transfer across the whole of europe, usually a galactico to madrid, whilst the rest were relatively low value signings. Clever recruitment will be key, and although its clearly not working for them right now, chelsea in 2 to 3 years time could be in a golden situation where they have snapped up already a lot of the emerging talent.

 

[Flump]

Not equal which means not fair. The law is called financial fair play. Make up as go along

Life isn't fair.

How would you make it so that Luton and Man Utd can spend the same amount? I'm sure the Glazers would love it if Man Utd's spending was limited to whatever Luton can spend, they'd be making incredible profits!

 

[Plovdiv Wolf]

Life isn't fair.

How would you make it so that Luton and Man Utd can spend the same amount? I'm sure the Glazers would love it if Man Utd's spending was limited to whatever Luton can spend, they'd be making incredible profits!

The league close shop. Playing for 7th every season. Very strange

The balance must be closer?

 

[Flump]

The league close shop. Playing for 7th every season. Very strange

I'm sorry, I don't understand.

There is no way to ensure Man Utd and Luton spend the same. To do that either:

a) you limit Man Utd to spending what Luton can, which is mad - the owners would love it though
b) you allow Luton to spend as much as Man Utd. Obviously, they couldn't do so prudently, but you'd see lots of clubs gambling by spending to stay up, then getting into deep messes when inevitably 3 are relegated each season

 

[Plovdiv Wolf]

I'm sorry, I don't understand.

There is no way to ensure Man Utd and Luton spend the same. To do that either:

a) you limit Man Utd to spending what Luton can, which is mad - the owners would love it though
b) you allow Luton to spend as much as Man Utd. Obviously, they couldn't do so prudently, but you'd see lots of clubs gambling by spending to stay up, then getting into deep messes when inevitably 3 are relegated each season

That is good and bad. Stop another Portsmouth situation. Where can you make it more fair?

 

[ade123]

The only way I can see to make it fairer is a combination of wage cap, PSR and a player quota (eg how many incomings per season based on how many teams the clubs have, how many players out on loan). It would possibly allow mid table clubs to compete with wealthier club for the better quality player and lower level clubs with the mid-table clubs?

 

[Streathamwolf]

Athletic reporting that the PL are substantially incresing their legal team as they may not hit deadlines for current cases.

 

[wolfgar]

Athletic reporting that the PL are substantially incresing their legal team as they may not hit deadlines for current cases.

It's going to get very messy isn't it? I'll be happy to be sat there on 40 plus points with no charges watching it all unfold tbqh.

 

[Lobo de Ouro]

If every club is losing money at the rates claimed... where is all the money going?

Numbers on a balance sheet and nothing more. Doctored numbers. Meaningless numbers.

Ridiculous idea in the first place, and even worse now. **** it off already.

 

[old wittonian]

Athletic reporting that the PL are substantially incresing their legal team as they may not hit deadlines for current cases.

They'll probably declare a ****ing amnesty.

 

[WickedWolfie]

Premier money increases, I think increase the limit. New rules make harder smaller clubs. Not very fair.

For to be fair. The level has to be equal same for every club in the league. I think maybe that too sensible?

Re your last para all that would do is destroy the ability of English clubs to compete in Europe unless the level was set so high that smaller clubs would be in real financial danger. Such a system works well in US sports where there is no international competition. You only have to look at Rugby Union where the cap in England is lower than that in France to see the likely consequences in football though.

 

[Sussex Wolf]

I'm sorry, I don't understand.

There is no way to ensure Man Utd and Luton spend the same. To do that either:

a) you limit Man Utd to spending what Luton can, which is mad - the owners would love it though
b) you allow Luton to spend as much as Man Utd. Obviously, they couldn't do so prudently, but you'd see lots of clubs gambling by spending to stay up, then getting into deep messes when inevitably 3 are relegated each season

Well a) is effectively the same as the salary cap in the US, and since lots of PL clubs are owned by US folks now, I could see them going for that.

There is a certain logic which might see a cap on wages and transfer spend which is set at the level of the base TV rights allocation, or some ratio of it (eg 120%) - ie a little above). Clubs with large revenues beyond tv rights would make large profits. Owners would love that, but it would also be an incentive to grow that side of the business purely for commercial gain. Equally, there would be an incentive to develop the academies as that’s a source of transfer revenue or avoidance of paying as much on transfer fees. For the game it would act as a leveller, ensuring a more competitive league and hence more entertaining for fans and tv rights. As long as PL tv rights remain massive compared to other European leagues, then it shouldn’t act as too great a barrier to English teams in UEFA - to address the point @WickedWolfie makes.

I could see the biggest clubs seeking a slightly different calculation- a ratio of all TV rights rather than just the base. This would advantage clubs which attract more games (them) and hence help to entrench an advantage for those clubs. But as more and more games are televised, perhaps that advantage would fade.

 

[yateleywolf]

Personally I think owners should be allowed to invest as much as they like but the premier league should say they have to be gifts not loans if they are above the allowed limit

I don't agree , countries that own clubs would pour in as much as they like . I'm sure people will soon moaning about that. There needs to be controls .

 

[wolfgar]

They'll probably declare a ****ing amnesty.

Then any club finishing below Everton and Forest will kick off I should imagine? Not sure they can get away with it, but they can certainly string things out and make it a circus?

 

[Black Country Wanderer]

Well a) is effectively the same as the salary cap in the US, and since lots of PL clubs are owned by US folks now, I could see them going for that.

There is a certain logic which might see a cap on wages and transfer spend which is set at the level of the base TV rights allocation, or some ratio of it (eg 120%) - ie a little above). Clubs with large revenues beyond tv rights would make large profits. Owners would love that, but it would also be an incentive to grow that side of the business purely for commercial gain. Equally, there would be an incentive to develop the academies as that’s a source of transfer revenue or avoidance of paying as much on transfer fees. For the game it would act as a leveller, ensuring a more competitive league and hence more entertaining for fans and tv rights. As long as PL tv rights remain massive compared to other European leagues, then it shouldn’t act as too great a barrier to English teams in UEFA - to address the point @WickedWolfie makes.

I could see the biggest clubs seeking a slightly different calculation- a ratio of all TV rights rather than just the base. This would advantage clubs which attract more games (them) and hence help to entrench an advantage for those clubs. But as more and more games are televised, perhaps that advantage would fade.

This is why i welcome the BT and Amazon intervention on Sky football monopoly
It levels the playing field somewhat and is only going to increase over time
The more games where the "lesser lights" are involved the better and lessens the Super six syndrome effect

 

[SteveBullsKnee]

My wife got done for speeding once, 34 in a 30. About 6 months later they increased the speed limit on the road to 40. She moaned every time we went past the sign for years after. Oddly it didn't prove to be grounds for appeal.

I once got two speeding tickets come through with the EXACT time, date and location. One said 36 in a 30 one said 34 in a 30. I tried to be a smart Alec and appeal, big mistake they just doubled my fine instead! Never again……

 

[jackdusty]

Not equal which means not fair. The law is called financial fair play. Make up as go along

That's why they have changed the name, a bit like changing Global Warming to Climate Change .

 

[Southdownswolf]

Rumours coming in that Chelsea need to make £100m of "home grown" sales before the end of June to comply with FFP. If it's true, they could be in big, big trouble.
As it stands, there are not many clubs that will be willing to spend big before the end of June, especially with the Euros in June/July. Whilst Chelsea may have a few players they would be willing to get rid of ie, Gallagher and Broja, who is going to spend £50/60m on each of those?
They could well be in a Forest situation, where they need to offload players on the cheap, rather than waiting for the best price, but sell more of them. Forest gambled by waiting, we're now waiting to see their punishment. Once the punishment is dished out, Chelsea will know the full gravity of their situation if they don't comply.

 

[SingYourHeartsOut]

Rumours coming in that Chelsea need to make £100m of "home grown" sales before the end of June to comply with FFP. If it's true, they could be in big, big trouble.
As it stands, there are not many clubs that will be willing to spend big before the end of June, especially with the Euros in June/July. Whilst Chelsea may have a few players they would be willing to get rid of ie, Gallagher and Broja, who is going to spend £50/60m on each of those?
They could well be in a Forest situation, where they need to offload players on the cheap, rather than waiting for the best price, but sell more of them. Forest gambled by waiting, we're now waiting to see their punishment. Once the punishment is dished out, Chelsea will know the full gravity of their situation if they don't comply.

Don't follow them that closely, but looking it up Gallagher, who could have been a £40m+ type player when the market was strong, will only have one year left, so £25m would be top end I'd have thought. Broja hasn't proved anywhere near enough as far as I can see, if he has a very good loan maybe similar. They've got others though. Looking down the list on transfermarkt it is hilarious how many players they've got signed up on contracts to 2030 and 2031, book values likely to be above market values for 5 years at least!

 

[Lincoln-Wolves86]

Rumours coming in that Chelsea need to make £100m of "home grown" sales before the end of June to comply with FFP. If it's true, they could be in big, big trouble.
As it stands, there are not many clubs that will be willing to spend big before the end of June, especially with the Euros in June/July. Whilst Chelsea may have a few players they would be willing to get rid of ie, Gallagher and Broja, who is going to spend £50/60m on each of those?
They could well be in a Forest situation, where they need to offload players on the cheap, rather than waiting for the best price, but sell more of them. Forest gambled by waiting, we're now waiting to see their punishment. Once the punishment is dished out, Chelsea will know the full gravity of their situation if they don't comply.

Spurs were linked with Gallagher heavily this Jan, sure it was £45m, he’s not worth that at all, but think spurs are one of the few clubs who can afford that now.

Why is it they have to sell home grown players only though? Why couldn’t they sell Thiago Silva for £50m - hypothetically of course

 

[dnf14]

Spurs were linked with Gallagher heavily this Jan, sure it was £45m, he’s not worth that at all, but think spurs are one of the few clubs who can afford that now.

Why is it they have to sell home grown players only though? Why couldn’t they sell Thiago Silva for £50m - hypothetically of course

Academy produced players such as Gallagher and Hall have zero book value and are thus have the largest profit margin and homegrown eligibility adds a premium on top. They're young enough to have enough upside to justify a high fee with none of the amortization baggage like Lavia, Palmer, Jackson etc.

Silva also has pretty much zero book value so could theoretically be sold the same way but I'm sure the FA would come down like a ton of bricks about the fair value of a 39 year old non-homegrown CB.

 

[Lincoln-Wolves86]

Academy produced players such as Gallagher and Hall have zero book value and are thus have the largest profit margin and homegrown eligibility adds a premium on top. They're young enough to have enough upside to justify a high fee with none of the amortization baggage like Lavia, Palmer, Jackson etc.

Silva also has pretty much zero book value so could theoretically be sold the same way but I'm sure the FA would come down like a ton of bricks about the fair value of a 39 year old non-homegrown CB.

Thanks mate. Football is a complicated old business now.

When you refer to book value, are you talking amortisation? I’ll use Thiago silva again as a hypothetical example here. But say they bought him 2 years ago for £100m, amortised his transfer so £12.5m every year for the next 6 years.
They have 2 offers come in, £50m for Thiago Silva or £50m for Gallagher. Regardless of which offer they accept £50m goes into their books and Thiago Silva continues to be paid for at £12.5m.
So it wouldn’t matter whether homegrown or not?

I’m just trying to understand it

 

[GoldenHorseshoe]

I once got two speeding tickets come through with the EXACT time, date and location. One said 36 in a 30 one said 34 in a 30. I tried to be a smart Alec and appeal, big mistake they just doubled my fine instead! Never again……

You?
A smart Alec?
I don't believe it!