sidcow Posted April 30 VT Supporter Share Posted April 30 1 minute ago, duke313 said: We beat a few of the glamour clubs this season already. In a superleague they power so far ahead it will be frightening. Even Arsenal will be left far behind Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VillaJ100 Posted April 30 Share Posted April 30 13 minutes ago, sidcow said: In a superleague they power so far ahead it will be frightening. Even Arsenal will be left far behind How so? There's not that many world class players to go around. Man City can already buy anyone they want Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mazrim Posted April 30 Share Posted April 30 Not sure if this the right place for this but apparently we are one of 3 clubs voting against a proposed spending cap. The others being Man Utd and Man City. The spending cap is based on 5x TV revenue of the bottom club, which if you take last years would be circa £500m. So, any thoughts on why we would want to vote against that? Would our owners want to spend more? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul514 Posted April 30 Share Posted April 30 18 minutes ago, Mazrim said: Not sure if this the right place for this but apparently we are one of 3 clubs voting against a proposed spending cap. The others being Man Utd and Man City. The spending cap is based on 5x TV revenue of the bottom club, which if you take last years would be circa £500m. So, any thoughts on why we would want to vote against that? Would our owners want to spend more? I would have thought we want to spend LESS. If that is true then that would pass as you need 14 for anything to pass and they way you worded it that has 17 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mazrim Posted April 30 Share Posted April 30 (edited) 5 minutes ago, paul514 said: I would have thought we want to spend LESS. If that is true then that would pass as you need 14 for anything to pass and they way you worded it that has 17 Why would we want to spend less? We could outmuscle all but 2 clubs maybe in the league if the shackles were off? Then again, the proposed cap would allow us to spend a shitload anyway so why vote against it? I'm scratching my head a bit tbh. Edited April 30 by Mazrim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThunderPower_14 Posted April 30 Share Posted April 30 27 minutes ago, Mazrim said: Not sure if this the right place for this but apparently we are one of 3 clubs voting against a proposed spending cap. The others being Man Utd and Man City. The spending cap is based on 5x TV revenue of the bottom club, which if you take last years would be circa £500m. So, any thoughts on why we would want to vote against that? Would our owners want to spend more? Just based on what was discussed regarding this yesterday: The European cap is still a percentage of our revenue and isn't in line with the proposed PL cap. So for a club like us who isn't an already established global elite club but that is playing in Europe, we'd have to cap our revenue to the European limit, which for us might be say, £200mil while clubs that don't qualify for Europe can pay up to the £500m. For clubs like Man City and Liverpool who have enormous established revenue, there isn't really any disparity between the 2 caps. So basically it's a bit of a glass ceiling in terms of trying to grow our club while having a much lower salary cap than the rest of our domestic league. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich192 Posted April 30 Share Posted April 30 The cap and the FFP rules are separate as far as I’m aware. Teams in Europe can spend 70% of their turnover, teams outside of Europe can spend 85% of their turnover. Teams can’t just spend £600m regardless of their turnover. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meregreen Posted April 30 Share Posted April 30 Agents fees should be the responsibility of the players. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJ_Villain Posted April 30 Share Posted April 30 45 minutes ago, meregreen said: Agents fees should be the responsibility of the players. Agents should be outlawed… if players aren’t smart enough to realise they are being exploited without the help of some bloke in a shirt and tie reading things on their behalf, they deserve to be taken advantage of… Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pinebro Posted April 30 Share Posted April 30 Only being able to spend 80 of your total revenue would be absolutely pathetic. Basically giving all the power to Man Utd and Liverpool Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheltenham_villa Posted April 30 Share Posted April 30 59 minutes ago, meregreen said: Agents fees should be the responsibility of the players. and those fees would just then be spread across wages. Unfortunately no regulation exists around what agents can charge and for what services they provide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PieFacE Posted April 30 VT Supporter Share Posted April 30 8 minutes ago, Pinebro said: Only being able to spend 80 of your total revenue would be absolutely pathetic. Basically giving all the power to Man Utd and Liverpool Yeah but then the anchor would prevent the Manchester clubs from spending 80% of their revenue. (I think the above statement is correct but not completely ontop of it) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarryOnVilla Posted April 30 Share Posted April 30 My interpretation of the new cap confuses me clubs are allowed to spend 400% of the lowest earning clubs income (estimated £400m a year) however if you qualify for Europe, you can only spend 80/70% of your own income. Villa’s case about £170-150M ish. so what would happen if a Bournemouth maxed out their cap and qualify for European football, would they need to sell players/ reduce wage bills just to play European football? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobzy Posted April 30 Share Posted April 30 16 minutes ago, CarryOnVilla said: My interpretation of the new cap confuses me clubs are allowed to spend 400% of the lowest earning clubs income (estimated £400m a year) however if you qualify for Europe, you can only spend 80/70% of your own income. Villa’s case about £170-150M ish. so what would happen if a Bournemouth maxed out their cap and qualify for European football, would they need to sell players/ reduce wage bills just to play European football? Yes - almost like you need to manage your finances more responsibly. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarryOnVilla Posted April 30 Share Posted April 30 (edited) 8 minutes ago, bobzy said: Yes - almost like you need to manage your finances more responsibly. It just seems like backhand way for the “poorer” clubs to actually compete. They get a chance to actually compete on spending, but if it turns out well for them and they get in to Europe, then they’re ****. so it doesn’t really even the playing field. It just hides the unevenness better. Edited April 30 by CarryOnVilla Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Follyfoot Posted April 30 VT Supporter Share Posted April 30 8 minutes ago, bobzy said: Yes - almost like you need to manage your finances more responsibly. so it basically makes challenging the Sky six impossible Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobzy Posted April 30 Share Posted April 30 11 minutes ago, CarryOnVilla said: It just seems like backhand way for the “poorer” clubs to actually compete. They get a chance to actually compete on spending, but if it turns out well for them and they get in to Europe, then they’re ****. so it doesn’t really even the playing field. It just hides the unevenness better. 11 minutes ago, Follyfoot said: so it basically makes challenging the Sky six impossible From the very little I know, it does the opposite. I don't think the details have been published/finalised though. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duke313 Posted April 30 Share Posted April 30 56 minutes ago, CarryOnVilla said: It just seems like backhand way for the “poorer” clubs to actually compete. They get a chance to actually compete on spending, but if it turns out well for them and they get in to Europe, then they’re ****. so it doesn’t really even the playing field. It just hides the unevenness better. One thing it will do though is raise the price of transfer fees and wages Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PieFacE Posted April 30 VT Supporter Share Posted April 30 (edited) 1 hour ago, CarryOnVilla said: My interpretation of the new cap confuses me clubs are allowed to spend 400% of the lowest earning clubs income (estimated £400m a year) however if you qualify for Europe, you can only spend 80/70% of your own income. Villa’s case about £170-150M ish. so what would happen if a Bournemouth maxed out their cap and qualify for European football, would they need to sell players/ reduce wage bills just to play European football? I think all teams will still have to adhere to some form of financial restrictions similar to UEFA's 80/70%. There's no getting around that. So it's not like Bournemouth can go and spend £500m and be fine. What the anchor will do is limit the amount teams like Man City and Man United can spend. If we say for example the anchor will be set at 4x (random value) the amount of money the team who came bottom made from TV, it would be set at approximately £400m. Which means Man City and Man United would only be able to spend up to £400m even tho they earn a lot more. At least, that's how i've understood it. The idea isn't to boost the amount of money teams with lower revenue can spend, but to limit the amount the high rollers can spend. I think. Edited April 30 by PieFacE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Czarnikjak Posted April 30 Share Posted April 30 6 minutes ago, PieFacE said: I think all teams will still have to adhere to some form of financial restrictions similar to UEFA's 80/70%. There's no getting around that. So it's not like Bournemouth can go and spend £500m and be fine. What the anchor will do is limit the amount teams like Man City and Man United can spend. If we say for example the anchor will be set at 4x (random value) the amount of money the team who came bottom made from TV, it would be set at approximately £400m. Which means Man City and Man United would only be able to spend up to £400m even tho they earn a lot more. At least, that's how i've understood it. The idea isn't to boost the amount of money teams with lower revenue can spend, but to limit the amount the high rollers can spend. I think. Yes, in the nutshell. So if big teams want to spend more, it will be in their interest to distribute broadcast revenue more evenly to smaller teams. Win, win situation. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts