duke313 Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 Wonder how Heck is going to get us around it? Although it might **** us over, it sounds like not being in Europe for a season will allow you to spend tons of money, then when in Europe you can reign it back. Will definitely allow promoted teams to be more competitive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wishywashy Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 17 minutes ago, ender4 said: It makes sense. The 'big 6' have massive revenues, the cap is so high that they hit the European cap first but can still spend £300-400m or so a season. The small revenue clubs not in Europe can now massively outspend Villa up to £300-400m per season. Villa hit the European cap first rather than the PL cap, so we can only spend £150-200m per season. Basically it kills Villa and any other non big 6 club that qualifies for Europe. This is literally the worst option of all spending proposals for Villa. Almost like it was specifically designed to kill Villa and Newcastle. The Premier League is already adopting a looser form of UEFA's European cap though (85% rather than UEFA's 70%): this hard spending cap of around £500m would be in addition to the new rules that clubs unanimously agreed on two weeks ago. Low-revenue Premier League clubs not in Europe wouldn't be able to spend ridiculous amounts of money because they'll still be restricted to 85% of their turnover per these new rules: they wouldn't be able to come close to the hard cap (c.£500m) that'll be imposed in addition to those rules. https://theathletic.com/5407740/2024/04/11/premier-league-ffp-rules-new/ Quote Premier League clubs have unanimously agreed in principle to introduce new financial fair play regulations from next season at a meeting in London on Thursday. Under the proposed new regime, clubs will only be allowed to spend a set percentage of their annual turnover on the wage bill for the first team and its coaching staff, plus the amortised costs of their transfer fees and all agents’ fees. Amortisation is how transfers are accounted for in club’s financial reports, with the cost of acquiring players, including fee and salary, spread out over the length of their contracts. The major difference, however, between the Premier League and UEFA regulations will be that they will operate a two-tier system, with clubs playing in European competition only able to spend 70 per cent of their turnover, while clubs not competing in Europe able to spend 85 per cent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lochheads twin Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 I feel sad that we are bracketed with the obnoxious Mancs. You also feel that we should automatically vote the opposite way they do, as it will generally be bad football and The Villa. one is often judged by the company they keep 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted April 29 Moderator Share Posted April 29 55 minutes ago, wishywashy said: Why exactly have Villa/Heck voted against this lol? Im guessing because it would mean next year Newcastle, who aren't in Europe, could spend up to £466m on wages while trying to build their revenues, while we, who are in Europe, would be restricted to around £200m on wages under the UEFA rules. Although frankly the rules are becoming so comically complex as each club tries desperately to find a system that benefits only themselves, that it's very difficult to know. Unfortunately, we've reached the point where Premier League clubs can't really be trusted to make the rules for football in this country, we need some sort of governmental regulator. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wishywashy Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 (edited) 7 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said: Im guessing because it would mean next year Newcastle, who aren't in Europe, could spend up to £466m on wages while trying to build their revenues, while we, who are in Europe, would be restricted to around £200m on wages under the UEFA rules. Although frankly the rules are becoming so comically complex as each club tries desperately to find a system that benefits only themselves, that it's very difficult to know. Unfortunately, we've reached the point where Premier League clubs can't really be trusted to make the rules for football in this country, we need some sort of governmental regulator. The Premier League will be restricting teams to 85% spend of turnover from next season anyway (which is the big change that's replacing FFP in it's current form), so Newcastle wouldn't be able to do that. The new UEFA financial rules will be restricting teams to 90% spend next season, then 70% from 2025-26, so we wouldn't feel any additional restrictive effects from being in Europe next season. So the Premier League rules will definitely be a bit looser for teams not in Europe, 15% more of turnover to be precise, but I suppose that's mitigated a bit as teams in Europe will get more money. I can see why the likes of Villa and Newcastle might not be overly keen, but this was unanimously agreed on about a month ago, and this hard cap would be an additional measure. I guess one reason you'd be opposed would be if you think the Premier League's broadcasting money has peaked with this current deal, and will decrease in the coming years to the point where the 'hard cap' suddenly becomes restrictive for more than just the likes of Chelsea and Man City. Edited April 29 by wishywashy 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 2 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said: Im guessing because it would mean next year Newcastle, who aren't in Europe, could spend up to £466m on wages while trying to build their revenues, while we, who are in Europe, would be restricted to around £200m on wages under the UEFA rules. Although frankly the rules are becoming so comically complex as each club tries desperately to find a system that benefits only themselves, that it's very difficult to know. Unfortunately, we've reached the point where Premier League clubs can't really be trusted to make the rules for football in this country, we need some sort of governmental regulator. In this scenario Newcastle would only be able to spend 85% of what they make in revenue still. ‘Squad cost control’ rules come first and the wage cap is a back stop. It only really impacts teams with massive revenues I.e it has been quoted that if it was in effect last year the cap would have been £518m so it would have only capped anyone with revenues above £740m (if in Europe). 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duke313 Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 10 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said: Im guessing because it would mean next year Newcastle, who aren't in Europe, could spend up to £466m on wages while trying to build their revenues, while we, who are in Europe, would be restricted to around £200m on wages under the UEFA rules. Although frankly the rules are becoming so comically complex as each club tries desperately to find a system that benefits only themselves, that it's very difficult to know. Unfortunately, we've reached the point where Premier League clubs can't really be trusted to make the rules for football in this country, we need some sort of governmental regulator. Newcastle will be in Europe though, Europa Conference at present. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fun Factory Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 12 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said: Im guessing because it would mean next year Newcastle, who aren't in Europe, could spend up to £466m on wages while trying to build their revenues, while we, who are in Europe, would be restricted to around £200m on wages under the UEFA rules. Although frankly the rules are becoming so comically complex as each club tries desperately to find a system that benefits only themselves, that it's very difficult to know. Unfortunately, we've reached the point where Premier League clubs can't really be trusted to make the rules for football in this country, we need some sort of governmental regulator. ...which we also opposed to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ender4 Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 (edited) 10 minutes ago, wishywashy said: The Premier League will be restricting teams to 85% spend of turnover from next season anyway (which is the big change that's replacing FFP in it's current form), so Newcastle wouldn't be able to do that. The new UEFA financial rules will be restricting teams to 90% spend next season, then 70% from 2025-26, so we wouldn't feel any additional restrictive effects from being in Europe next season. So the Premier League rules will definitely be a bit looser for teams not in Europe, 15% more of turnover to be precise, but I suppose that's mitigated a bit as teams in Europe will get more money. I can see why the likes of Villa and Newcastle might not be overly keen, but this was unanimously agreed on about a month ago, and this hard cap would be an additional measure. I guess one reason you'd be opposed would be if you think the Premier League's broadcasting money has peaked with this current deal, and will decrease in the coming years to the point where the 'hard cap' suddenly becomes restrictive for more than just the likes of Chelsea and Man City. Yes and no. The PL PSR rules are for 2024-25 season. Then the new PL cap system replaces the PL PSR rules for 2025-26 onwards. Edited April 29 by ender4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 If a Super League comes up again, we will be putting our hand up to join it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wishywashy Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 (edited) 7 minutes ago, ender4 said: Yes and no. The PL PSR rules are for 2024-25 season. Then the new PL cap system replaces the PL PSR rules for 2025-26 onwards. Ahhh, I see what you mean. That does seem... questionable. Would make far more sense to combine them. Not sure why Newcastle would vote in favour of that sort of proposal. Edited April 29 by wishywashy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HalfTimePost Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 6 minutes ago, wishywashy said: Ahhh, I see what you mean. That does seem... questionable. Would make far more sense to combine them. Not sure why Newcastle would vote in favour of that sort of proposal. Allows them to spend £400m if they don't qualify for Europe and go all in like they've been wanting to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baldricks Cunning Plan Posted April 29 Visiting Supporter Share Posted April 29 14 minutes ago, ender4 said: Yes and no. The PL PSR rules are for 2024-25 season. Then the new PL cap system replaces the PL PSR rules for 2025-26 onwards. The below is what the Independent are reporting - I think that WishyWashy is right. In principle, the idea is to prevent a further widening of the financial chasm that is increasingly seen between the top and bottom ends of the league. In reality, it might mean that excessive and lucrative sponsorship deals made by the richest club have no additional impact on their spending power, if their income is already over the anchored amount of the least affluent sides. Clubs have already agreed to replace the current Profitability and Sustainability Rules (PSR) from 2025-26 onwards, with cost controls instead limiting club expenditure on salaries, signing and fees to 85 per cent of total revenue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ender4 Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 1 minute ago, Baldricks Cunning Plan said: The below is what the Independent are reporting - I think that WishyWashy is right. In principle, the idea is to prevent a further widening of the financial chasm that is increasingly seen between the top and bottom ends of the league. In reality, it might mean that excessive and lucrative sponsorship deals made by the richest club have no additional impact on their spending power, if their income is already over the anchored amount of the least affluent sides. Clubs have already agreed to replace the current Profitability and Sustainability Rules (PSR) from 2025-26 onwards, with cost controls instead limiting club expenditure on salaries, signing and fees to 85 per cent of total revenue. No, that's exactly what i'm saying. Look at the word i've bolded - it says "REPLACE" PSR, not in addition to PSR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ender4 Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 11 minutes ago, wishywashy said: Ahhh, I see what you mean. That does seem... questionable. Would make far more sense to combine them. Not sure why Newcastle would vote in favour of that sort of proposal. Maybe more fake sponsorship deals on the horizon to massively increase revenue so that they are fine spending more under the UEFA Squad Ratio Rules. But they won't spend so much that they will hit the new PL cap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodders0223 Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 Be very weary of this ownership group I tell you. They would sell their gran for a bit of the pie. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wishywashy Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 (edited) 13 minutes ago, ender4 said: No, that's exactly what i'm saying. Look at the word i've bolded - it says "REPLACE" PSR, not in addition to PSR. Now I genuinely have no clue: in the Independent article you can arguably read it both ways, and in the Times' article (by Martyn Ziegler) it suggests that the squad cost control replaces PSR and that once again it'd be in addition. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/81e36d08-ad3a-470b-8a8b-7fc0c540a74e?shareToken=cf42a3f3d4cef7bbed7def89354ca948 Quote The Premier League has already agreed to replace its Profitability and Sustainability Rules from the 2025-26 season with a squad cost control, which will limit clubs to spending 85 per cent of their total revenue on wages, transfer payments and agents’ fees. Anchoring would fix a ceiling on that spending and is generally being supported by those clubs who fear the growing power of the richest elite and in particular the spending power of state-owned clubs. So the BBC suggest it replaces the limit, Independent you can argue both ways, and the Times suggest it's in addition. The joys of the media. And English. Would be very nice if the Premier League came out with a press release that clarified what exactly they're planning to do. Edited April 29 by wishywashy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ender4 Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 1 minute ago, wishywashy said: Now I genuinely have no clue: in the Independent article you can read it both ways, and in the Times' article (by Martyn Ziegler so pretty much the defining authority) it suggests that the squad cost control replaces PSR and that once again it'd be in addition. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/81e36d08-ad3a-470b-8a8b-7fc0c540a74e?shareToken=cf42a3f3d4cef7bbed7def89354ca948 So the BBC suggest it replaces the limit, Independent you can argue both ways, and the Times suggest it's in addition. The joys of the media. And English. Though The Times also suggests a conflicting viewpoint in the same sentence - the sentence starts with "The Premier League has already agreed to replace..." using the word replace. But then continues by talking about 85% limit. I now have no idea lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rds1983 Posted April 29 VT Supporter Share Posted April 29 1 hour ago, duke313 said: I think we voted against it, along with City and United Question for me is, why did Newcastle vote for it? You'd think we would be in the same bucket as them. Interestingly Arsenal and Liverpool appear to have voted for it to so the sky 6 teams are split. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoelVilla Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 1 hour ago, duke313 said: Wonder how Heck is going to get us around it? Although it might **** us over, it sounds like not being in Europe for a season will allow you to spend tons of money, then when in Europe you can reign it back. Will definitely allow promoted teams to be more competitive. Seems lilke the best for us would be Champions League next season and then miss Europe 25/26. A bit weird. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts