Anchoring | Page 2 | Vital Football

Anchoring

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...


Perhaps to stop transfer fees and wages getting higher and bigger?

There's even suggestions that the PFA and agents will get together and oppose this as its restricts what the biggest clubs can pay out to players and agents
 
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...
No they cant, that is what their problem is.

They claim to raise 900m in income yet their spending will be restrained to 466m.

At least it will put to bed the charade of inflated sponsorship deals and Clubs selling assets to themselves.

Talking of which; if EM is looking to move to a state of the art training Ground, why does he not get the plans drawn up and sell the land to another branch of the club for an amount which gives us significant breathing space for next season.
 
mao tse tung said:
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.
Click to expand...
It’s not quite that simple - there is still the prospect of an 85% cap for teams not in Europe and any team in Europe has to adhere to the 70% cap that UEFA have introduced.

The big clubs will still have an advantage but it won’t be quite as big
 
Basha73 said:
It’s not quite that simple - there is still the prospect of an 85% cap for teams not in Europe and any team in Europe has to adhere to the 70% cap that UEFA have introduced.

The big clubs will still have an advantage but it won’t be quite as big
Click to expand...
The Clubs with wealthy owners will still have an advantage mainly because some other Clubs will not be prepared to spend 400+ million anyway.

Going from a 35m liability a season to 466m will be too rich for some people's taste.
 
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...
That would be what Profit and Sustainability actually mean, so that sort of thinking has no place in football.
 
mao tse tung said:
The Clubs with wealthy owners will still have an advantage mainly because some other Clubs will not be prepared to spend 400+ million anyway.

Going from a 35m liability a season to 466m will be too rich for some people's taste.
Click to expand...
That’s very true - you effectively have two caps in place. It won’t solve the issue but it will close the gap from the chasm it currently is.
 
mao tse tung said:
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.
Click to expand...
No it won’t give Maranakis free rein as this comes in 2 parts with anchoring being the second part. The first part is to do with squad value and you can spend 85 per cent of your revenue of it. For example if your revenue from TV and commercial activities is 200 million you can spend 170 million but like Man city there revenue is 700 million they will be anchored to the 500 million as that will be the maximum which is why they voted against it
 
I listened to Keiren Mcquire on Talksport yesterday and he explained what anchoring is.

Basically the 1st level of spend cap is the 85% of earnings.
The 2nd level would be anchoring - which is the multiple of the TV revenue
as an example 5 X £100m = £500m

The lower of the 2 calculations will be applied to each club

So for Forest with a turnover of £200m we could spend £170m per year - this is lower than £500m so would be our cap.

Man City 70% (reduced as in Europe) of £800m = £560m
or 5 x £100m = £500m
The lower is the £500m from TV revenues - so that would be their cap.

This will not effect anyone except Man City or Man Utd - that is why they voted against it.

Everyone clear - no? thought not
 
Apollyon said:
Is anchoring like gooning and edging?
Click to expand...

It's smut like this which is why posters are leaving this once great forum in their droves every single day.

Can you and your little PON clique not go and start your own forum and leave the grown ups to discuss football in a civilised manner? Or is that too much for your tiny brains to comprehend?

Hmm?

Actually no need to reply, just piss off and leave us all alone.

Good day sir!
 
AdebolaCornflakes said:
It's smut like this which is why posters are leaving this once great forum in their droves every single day.

Can you and your little PON clique not go and start your own forum and leave the grown ups to discuss football in a civilised manner? Or is that too much for your tiny brains to comprehend?

Hmm?

Actually no need to reply, just piss off and leave us all alone.

Good day sir!
Click to expand...
He still hasn't made the connection between anchors and boats - that will keep him busy for a day or two
 
Geedo61 said:
I listened to Keiren Mcquire on Talksport yesterday and he explained what anchoring is.

Basically the 1st level of spend cap is the 85% of earnings.
The 2nd level would be anchoring - which is the multiple of the TV revenue
as an example 5 X £100m = £500m

The lower of the 2 calculations will be applied to each club

So for Forest with a turnover of £200m we could spend £170m per year - this is lower than £500m so would be our cap.

Man City 70% (reduced as in Europe) of £800m = £560m
or 5 x £100m = £500m
The lower is the £500m from TV revenues - so that would be their cap.

This will not effect anyone except Man City or Man Utd - that is why they voted against it.

Everyone clear - no? thought not
Click to expand...
Why on earth would City or United or any of the big six be against this?

No one (Chelsea freak show apart) spends £500m YOY, but if they want to they can.

Except everyone else of course. Every club should be able to spend to same level, or each club can do what they want
 
finbar70 said:
Why on earth would City or United or any of the big six be against this?

No one (Chelsea freak show apart) spends £500m YOY, but if they want to they can.

Except everyone else of course. Every club should be able to spend to same level, or each club can do what they want
Click to expand...
Agreed.
It just shows that they only care about themselves.
My main point though is that Forest will not benefit from it. In fact we will be worse off.
I think our turnover this year was circa £150m - and we could lose £35m which means we had a budget of £185m

Under the new rules with the same turnover our budget would be 85% of £150m - so £127.5m. So our budget will reduce by £52.5m or circa 30%
 
Geedo61 said:
Agreed.
It just shows that they only care about themselves.
My main point though is that Forest will not benefit from it. In fact we will be worse off.
I think our turnover this year was circa £150m - and we could lose £35m which means we had a budget of £185m

Under the new rules with the same turnover our budget would be 85% of £150m - so £127.5m. So our budget will reduce by £52.5m or circa 30%
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure this will be open to abuse.
Like some Greek supermarket typhoon sponsoring us for 150M.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.