Anchoring | Vital Football

Anchoring

mao tse tung

mao tse tung

Vital Champions League
It looks like the PL Clubs have agreed to the proposed Anchoring agreement which is effectively a spending cap.

Clubs will be tied to what the bottom Club earns in TV revenue multiplied by a yet to be determined factor.

Both Manchester Clubs and Villa voted against the arrangement and Chelsea abstained.

The calculating factor is currently being mooted at 4.5; if that is the case, the bottom club currently gets 103.6m, multiply that by 4.5 and you get a cap of 466m

However, it is not yet clear if there will be a limit of 85% and 70%, for Clubs playing in Europe, placed on wages, amortised fees and agents fees.

Assuming we stay up, I am not sure 466m will be sufficient to keep Militadis happy for two windows
 
radfordinlondon said:
so the top clubs can still spend 4.5 times what the bottom club can?

why isn't anyone making the point that they can spend as much as they want as long as they don't saddle the club with debt?
Click to expand...
Don’t think it works like that, but they will still be able to spend more, yes. Say 200m for winning the league, that means they can spend 900m compared to 466. That’s how I’ve read it, anyway.
 
mao tse tung said:
It looks like the PL Clubs have agreed to the proposed Anchoring agreement which is effectively a spending cap.

Clubs will be tied to what the bottom Club earns in TV revenue multiplied by a yet to be determined factor.

Both Manchester Clubs and Villa voted against the arrangement and Chelsea abstained.

The calculating factor is currently being mooted at 4.5; if that is the case, the bottom club currently gets 103.6m, multiply that by 4.5 and you get a cap of 466m

However, it is not yet clear if there will be a limit of 85% and 70%, for Clubs playing in Europe, placed on wages, amortised fees and agents fees.

Assuming we stay up, I am not sure 466m will be sufficient to keep Militadis happy for two windows
Click to expand...
We have to have the 70% cap to fall into line with UEFA so anyone in Europe will have to comply.
 
Mappred said:
Then why would City, United, and Villa, say no. How much do they want to spend?
Click to expand...
That money is for wages, bonuses, agents fees, signing on bonuses and amortised fees.

The assumption is that it will be 5 x the amount the lowest club gets.
 
Mappred said:
Don’t think it works like that, but they will still be able to spend more, yes. Say 200m for winning the league, that means they can spend 900m compared to 466. That’s how I’ve read it, anyway.
Click to expand...
Having read Mao’s post again, maybe City will ‘only’ be able to spend as much as us. I think🤷‍♂️. Perhaps that’s why they’ve rejected it.
 
Basha73 said:
That money is for wages, bonuses, agents fees, signing on bonuses and amortised fees.

The assumption is that it will be 5 x the amount the lowest club gets.
Click to expand...
So significantly more than we can currently spend. The interesting part is if they are still going to insist on the shit and not fit for purpose standards for next season without giving some leeway here to the newly promoted clubs and clubs promoted recently
 
finbar70 said:
So significantly more than we can currently spend. The interesting part is if they are still going to insist on the shit and not fit for purpose standards for next season without giving some leeway here to the newly promoted clubs and clubs promoted recently
Click to expand...
A lot depends on the 85% cap as well.

Same regs in place for next year which is ridiculous. The rules aren’t fit for purpose so they should just cancel the deductions and wait for decent regs to be put in place.
 
Basha73 said:
A lot depends on the 85% cap as well.

Same regs in place for next year which is ridiculous. The rules aren’t fit for purpose so they should just cancel the deductions and wait for decent regs to be put in place.
Click to expand...
If not cancel them at least adjust the amounts to take account of inflation which has been rife since those regs were brought in would at least make the amounts a bit more realistic
 
seasider red said:
If not cancel them at least adjust the amounts to take account of inflation which has been rife since those regs were brought in would at least make the amounts a bit more realistic
Click to expand...
Those amounts are totally out of sync with current levels, particularly if you then consider promoted teams.

Imagine if a team had successive promotions - one of those years would be at the league one rate…
 
The two Manchester clubs and Villa voted against.

Arsenal and Liverpool voted for, as did Spurs and Chelsea abstained.

What is the angle here that works for the top clubs voting for it? There has to be one
 
Pope John XXIII said:
The two Manchester clubs and Villa voted against.

Arsenal and Liverpool voted for, as did Spurs and Chelsea abstained.

What is the angle here that works for the top clubs voting for it? There has to be one
Click to expand...
Well, I would imagine that Levy and Kronke do not want to be involved in a race to the bottom were spending is concerned, and it puts them on a level footing with both Manchester Clubs, something they would never achieve under the current system.

Newcastle will be the big benefactors.

It also gives Maranakis the chance to spend as much as he would like to - he gives the impression that he is being restrained under the current system.

If so, he is going to need a bigger fleet.
 
Basha73 said:
Those amounts are totally out of sync with current levels, particularly if you then consider promoted teams.

Imagine if a team had successive promotions - one of those years would be at the league one rate…
Click to expand...
Well that wont matter from the 25/26 season
 
You must log in or register to reply here.