CVByrne Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 19 minutes ago, duke313 said: Because we’re one of the few clubs it **** over entirely. No enough revenue to not be affected by it, but in Europe so we have to adhere to Uefas stricter rules. We’re stuck in the middle. Ah I assume we voted against the 85% limit because we have to comply with the 70% UEFA limit. We wanted it to be 70% for PL same as UEFA. It's the hard cap which we would be in favour of. Capping the top clubs spend to that of the bottom one. So assume we think the former is more of an issue to us than the benefits of the latter. Which is probably right Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Steve Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 We could easily vote for a cap in June if the League presents a fair model. Let’s not be hasty now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ender4 Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 29 minutes ago, NoelVilla said: Seems lilke the best for us would be Champions League next season and then miss Europe 25/26. A bit weird. Nah the best is for us to win the CL next year and so get the £100m extra revenue and global recognition that comes with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alakagom Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 2 minutes ago, CVByrne said: Ah I assume we voted against the 85% limit because we have to comply with the 70% UEFA limit. We wanted it to be 70% for PL same as UEFA. It's the hard cap which we would be in favour of. Capping the top clubs spend to that of the bottom one. So assume we think the former is more of an issue to us than the benefits of the latter. Which is probably right It's not really capping top clubs spend to the bottom one. The most favoured proposal is 4x the bottom one, giving 466mn as hard salary cap if used this season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 Is unfair to put European clubs all in one category. The financial advantage gained from champions league is vast compared to conference but both will be limited on spend in the same ways. A stepped approach would have been better I.e 70% champions league, 75% europa, 80% conference. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CVByrne Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 9 minutes ago, Alakagom said: It's not really capping top clubs spend to the bottom one. The most favoured proposal is 4x the bottom one, giving 466mn as hard salary cap if used this season. It will be 5x though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CVByrne Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 Just now, Tony said: Is unfair to put European clubs all in one category. The financial advantage gained from champions league is vast compared to conference but both will be limited on spend in the same ways. A stepped approach would have been better I.e 70% champions league, 75% europa, 80% conference. You may be right but UEFA control their rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BleedClaretAndBlue Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 So We’ll be qualifying for Champions League but our players will want to leave for midtable clubs to earn more money ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted April 29 Moderator Share Posted April 29 1 hour ago, duke313 said: Newcastle will be in Europe though, Europa Conference at present. Just trying to pick an example of someone who might be able to erm, shall we say, "inflate", their revenues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeyAnty Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 28 minutes ago, The_Steve said: Explains why the club would vote against such a measure So why city and utd vote against? They want to spend more than 300-400m Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CVByrne Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 34 minutes ago, Czarnikjak said: 85% limit for non European clubs will still stay with this hard multiplayer cap. This is not bad news for us at all...the whole 85%~70% cap is terrible for our competitiveness though. Yes agreed on the latter point. However it's better than no cap of PSR. Most clubs who are in Europe one of every few years will have to keep an eye on the 70% limit. Key in the UEFA one is it's calculated on a calendar year method. This allows clubs to include the income for the group stages into the calculation. So you could be at 80% the previous season outside of Europe and then get to 70% because of the prize money boost the next season. ECL is just the nightmare tournament now. Hit by 70% threshold and not enough prize money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted April 29 Moderator Share Posted April 29 The only thing I'm absolutely sure of is that not one of the clubs around the table voted for anything that they felt was remotely there to benefit the wider game - it's just twenty sharks each trying to pull of the biggest piece of meat for themselves. I notice it's still the case that nobody is allowed to mention debt at these proceedings. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Random Precision Posted April 29 Visiting Supporter Share Posted April 29 2 hours ago, duke313 said: I think we voted against it, along with City and United Why did Newcastle vote for it if it’s going to be so negative for Villa and us? Newcastle are playing a much longer game here, not sure what yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted April 29 Moderator Share Posted April 29 So would I be correct in thinking that the people this would really benefit would be a 'super' team if they had a bad year and finished 8th - so for example if United did that this year, their revenues would be such that they would be able to spend more money next season than they would be able to normally in order to buy themselves back in? That would sort of make sense in terms of how the Premier league works and its desire to protect its TV show and that TV shows 'stars'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imavillan Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 there's a pretty good summation here I've put all the posts for those who are not on x/twitter 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Czarnikjak Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 (edited) 6 minutes ago, imavillan said: there's a pretty good summation here I've put all the posts for those who are not on x/twitter No, he got few things wrong there. He forgot about 85% limit for clubs that don't qualify for Europe. Also, when he says "to spend £400m on transfers" this is plainly wrong. There's no limit on "transfers"...only squad costs (wages, amortisation and agent fees) Edited April 29 by Czarnikjak 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villarule123 Posted April 29 VT Supporter Share Posted April 29 **** it, just go for broke and then no other English team can play in Europe or it will make a mockery of the whole thing when the big boys just keep getting in after underperforming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wishywashy Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 2 minutes ago, imavillan said: there's a pretty good summation here I've put all the posts for those who are not on x/twitter This thread is under the impression that there won't be a 85% spending cap for Prem clubs, which The Times and The Athletic have both said will remain. The UEFA rules being 70% of turnover are valid from 2025/26 (although the only competition where it wouldn't really be worth it would be the Conference League) but that's got nothing to do with the measure voted on today. Still baffled as to why Villa voted against. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted April 29 Moderator Share Posted April 29 Yep - the chap with the twitter thread has missed the big fundamental rule that comes in first (I did too). This is interesting: Looks like Chelsea are the team most at risk in this. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MotoMkali Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 23 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said: So would I be correct in thinking that the people this would really benefit would be a 'super' team if they had a bad year and finished 8th - so for example if United did that this year, their revenues would be such that they would be able to spend more money next season than they would be able to normally in order to buy themselves back in? That would sort of make sense in terms of how the Premier league works and its desire to protect its TV show and that TV shows 'stars'. No. It depends how this will interact with the 85% rule. If it replaces it then Newcastle are the biggest winners. Basically any low revenue team who have failed to make Europe. If it is in addition then Liverpool, Spurs and Arsenal are the biggest winners. It limits Chelsea, Cities and Uniteds spending so they can match them whilst not really having to worry about Villa, Newcastle, etc with the 85% rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts