Platypus
Vital Football Hero
Well, yes, but the "fine" might be a two year ban from European competition.So basically it's what we've been saying all along.
We can just pay the fine.
Financial Fair Play Explained
- Thread starter The Fear
- Start date
Villan57
Alert Team
That will be Europe's loss as well.
These rules are as clear as mud. Seems if you're in European competition it's stricter than the Premier league so basically a penalisation for being successful.
Turnover, from the little I understand, favours the usual suspects.
If the Premier league are so concerned with teams overspending and putting their clubs at financial risk why don't they just bring in a rule where owners pay in a certain percentage of what they spend on transfers into escrow, or whatever the Yanks call it,that's basically a safety net in case owners decide to up sticks and leave and can then be used to cover operational costs?
Probably too simple an idea from my less than basic understanding of the rules of which you need a PhD, doctorate, bronze survival certificate and a cycling proficiency badge to navigate
Turnover, from the little I understand, favours the usual suspects.
If the Premier league are so concerned with teams overspending and putting their clubs at financial risk why don't they just bring in a rule where owners pay in a certain percentage of what they spend on transfers into escrow, or whatever the Yanks call it,that's basically a safety net in case owners decide to up sticks and leave and can then be used to cover operational costs?
Probably too simple an idea from my less than basic understanding of the rules of which you need a PhD, doctorate, bronze survival certificate and a cycling proficiency badge to navigate
"Merd"
Vital Football Hero
Ok, I'm a little confused:
PL proposing a spending cap of circa £400m on transfers and wages - seems plausible and limits the Sky 6 just spending infinite amounts as their revenues continue to soar.
PL also implements a cap on spending to 85% of revenue but UEFA sets the limit at 70%.
So our revenue was £218m last financial year meaning we could spend a maximum of £152m on transfers and wages annually under UEFA rules (no where near the £400m ceiling), whereas Man City's revenue was £713m and they could spend £499m under UEFA rules but it's capped at £400m by the PL proposals.
To me, this provides room for us to grow revenues and the gap between us and the top earners has been reduced by £100m in terms of allowable spend.
I don't think I'm being stupid here as this should provide a more level playing field for PL teams playing in Europe and allow those who don't a little extra room (15% of revenue) for those teams not playing in Europe.
I get that this doesn't allow for aggressive expansion (which we may require to reach the very top quickly) but it does negate (somewhat) the Sky 6's massive advantage and produce a more level domestic playing field. It doesn't account for what the European giants are able to spend.
Our problem appears to be the differential between the reported £194.2m wages and transfer bill last financial year to the allowable £152m under UEFA rules which is probably why we voted against.
Have I got this about right??
PL proposing a spending cap of circa £400m on transfers and wages - seems plausible and limits the Sky 6 just spending infinite amounts as their revenues continue to soar.
PL also implements a cap on spending to 85% of revenue but UEFA sets the limit at 70%.
So our revenue was £218m last financial year meaning we could spend a maximum of £152m on transfers and wages annually under UEFA rules (no where near the £400m ceiling), whereas Man City's revenue was £713m and they could spend £499m under UEFA rules but it's capped at £400m by the PL proposals.
To me, this provides room for us to grow revenues and the gap between us and the top earners has been reduced by £100m in terms of allowable spend.
I don't think I'm being stupid here as this should provide a more level playing field for PL teams playing in Europe and allow those who don't a little extra room (15% of revenue) for those teams not playing in Europe.
I get that this doesn't allow for aggressive expansion (which we may require to reach the very top quickly) but it does negate (somewhat) the Sky 6's massive advantage and produce a more level domestic playing field. It doesn't account for what the European giants are able to spend.
Our problem appears to be the differential between the reported £194.2m wages and transfer bill last financial year to the allowable £152m under UEFA rules which is probably why we voted against.
Have I got this about right??
Dumble
Vital Squad Member
Seems like the expert agrees that it doesn't change much immediately for a lot of teams, it still protects the cartel, but the one's who are effected by it the most are the likes of us, Newcastle, etc. Anyone who (otherwise) has the ability to upset the status quo. I have no idea as to the specifics though
Stephen Jay Hawkings
Vital Football Legend
Imagine my shock.
What timing too, when it looks like the Sky 6 are being broken up us and Newcastle.
Dumble
Vital Squad Member
We will just have to be clever and continue to upset them regardless. One thing with all of this rubbish is, if we manage to really achieve something under these owners and management team.... it will be oh so sweet. Perhaps more so than if we were able to spend spend spend.
mike_field
Vital Football Legend
Been banging that drum for years mate. Let's owners do what they want, protects the clubs as it wipes out debts if it goes tits up.
mike_field
Vital Football Legend
4/5 times as suggested baseline bottom revenue broadcast deal. Some clubs cannot spend that, others could without batting an eyelid.
Clubs already in Europe have adjusted to UEFA FFP - new clubs (like us) are fucked as the nearest challenger chasers. As suggested we cannot now use the expanded PL wriggle room IF we are in Europe.
Apparently all Premier League clubs will only be able to spend 70-85% too, not just the ones in Europe.
A couple the comments from the link I posted:
Last edited:
mike_field
Vital Football Legend
That's the UEFA guidelines as I know it mate, and it doesn't apply domestically - it only applies to clubs in Europe.
It's not joined up.
I think you might be missing the new PL cap doesn't apply to Europe, so if we maxed out the new PL salary cap, we'd be banned from Europe under their regulations??
Or I might have confused myself lol
Yes, the new cap will apply to all PL clubs, but PL clubs in Europe have to abide by their regs which are far tighter. ie we spend £300 million allowable in the PL, that would see us booted out of Europe as their regs take precedence.
Means naff all to a Burnley, means less to established Euro sides as they have squad depth and have already over spent. Means the world for us as it cuts our legs off.
It's not joined up.
I think you might be missing the new PL cap doesn't apply to Europe, so if we maxed out the new PL salary cap, we'd be banned from Europe under their regulations??
Or I might have confused myself lol
Yes, the new cap will apply to all PL clubs, but PL clubs in Europe have to abide by their regs which are far tighter. ie we spend £300 million allowable in the PL, that would see us booted out of Europe as their regs take precedence.
Means naff all to a Burnley, means less to established Euro sides as they have squad depth and have already over spent. Means the world for us as it cuts our legs off.
mike_field
Vital Football Legend
Same thing, any side playing catch up is severely more limited from their established oppos in Europe.
If it's a multiple of bottom club cap, it's domestic only, there is no Euro wriggle room, because the domestic is then led by UEFA, but UEFA cannot dictate the PL on 14 clubs that don't fall under their control.
So 14 clubs are technically capable of having a financial advantage over successful clubs - which would never happen.
The whole thing is a shit storm.
If it's a multiple of bottom club cap, it's domestic only, there is no Euro wriggle room, because the domestic is then led by UEFA, but UEFA cannot dictate the PL on 14 clubs that don't fall under their control.
So 14 clubs are technically capable of having a financial advantage over successful clubs - which would never happen.
The whole thing is a shit storm.
If that information is correct, them 14 clubs outside of Europe will be able to spend 85% of their revenues compared to 70% for teams in Europe. A 15% difference, but not the hundreds of millions we first thought.
Regarding the salary cap, say it was set to £400 million, it would only take effect if the clubs income is over £571 million (70% of that is £400 million), therefore it'll only affects teams like Man U and Man City that have bigger incomes.
