Jump to content

New spending caps announced (FFP).


Kbdrum88
 Share

Recommended Posts

dont know if posted elsewhere, but just read this...

 

http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11677/8478278/Premier-League-clubs-facing-points-deduction-if-they-breach-new-spending-controls

 

Premier League clubs will face a points deduction if they breach new spending controls, chief executive Richard Scudamore has confirmed.
 
The 20 club chairmen agreed to two significant controls on Thursday - to limit players' wage bills from next season and longer-term measures that will restrict the amount of losses clubs can make to £105million over three years.
 
Clubs whose total wage bill is more than £52m will only be allowed to increase their wages by £4m per season for the next three years, but the cap does not cover extra money coming in from increases in commercial or matchday income.
 
Scudamore said: "As all things in our rulebook you will subject to a disciplinary commission.
 
"The clubs understand that if people break the £105m we will look for the top-end ultimate sanction range - a points deduction.
 
"If people break the £105m we will look for the top-end ultimate sanction range - a points deduction."
Richard Scudamore
"Normally we stay silent on sanctions as the commission has a free range but clearly if there is a material breach of that rule we will be asking the commission to consider top-end sanctions."
 
The vote for financial regulations could hardly have been closer, with only 13 of the 20 clubs voting in favour, with six against and Reading abstaining.
 
It meant that the 'yes' vote only narrowly achieved the necessary two-thirds majority of the 19 votes cast.
 
Clubs sources say Fulham, West Brom, Manchester City, Aston Villa, Swansea and Southampton all voted against.
 
Scudamore said there would be an "absolute prohibition" on clubs reporting losses of more than £105m over the next three years with the first sanctions possible in 2016.
 
HOW THEY VOTED
 
YES - 13
NO - 6
ABSTAINED - 1
Of the 20 clubs in the top flight, only Manchester City, Chelsea and Liverpool have reported losses of more than £105m over the last three years, according to the most up-to-date published accounts.
 
The regulations have come about against the backdrop of UEFA's Financial Fair Play (FFP) initiative.
 
Under UEFA's new rules clubs are being forced to minimise losses or risk the possibility of exclusion from European competition from 2014/15.
 
Scudamore admitted that their own FFP measures would mean it will take longer for benefactor owners to achieve success, but that it would still be possible.
 
He said: "The balance we have tried to strike is that a new owner can still invest a decent amount of money to improve their club but they are not going to be throwing hundreds and hundreds of millions in a very short period of time.
 
"While it has worked for a couple of clubs in the last 10 years, and I am not critical of that, if that's going to be done in the future it's going to have to be over a slightly longer term without the huge losses being made.
 
"In theory it's a good idea, but some people who have money will be able to hide it all over the world. I think there would be a real problem enforcing it."
Sir Alex Ferguson
"I think at £105m you can still build a very decent club with substantial owner funding but you have to do it over time, you can't do it in a season."
 
Chelsea won the Premier League two years after Roman Abramovich's takeover, and Manchester City's title success came three years after Sheikh Mansour's takeover.
 
Any club making any loss of over £5m a year will have guarantee those losses against the owner's assets.
 
"In some ways that's the most significant part; this is a three-year rolling system of secure funding - it's one year at the moment," added Scudamore.
 
The ceiling when the wage increase restrictions kick in will be £52m next season, £56m the following year and £60m in 2015-16. Only seven of the current top-flight clubs would be under that ceiling at the moment.

 

 

seems good but few questions, and also want to hear other peoples opinions on the matter ...

 

1. as good as it is that they've agreed this, whats stopping people like man city back door putting money in the club, by buying a airline company or something and sponsoring the team for an obscene amount each season therefore showing a great profit available to spend.

 

2. is it really any good just the prem agreeing this, cos surely it means other leagues such as spain, italy, france and so on could just become the new playgrounds for the rich and leave all the talent thats in the prem seaching for greener richer pastures abroad.

 

3. if scenario number 2 happens then a whole host of clubs could end up like portsmouth, by having our problem of high earners we cant shift, but whilst it being an annoyance now, actually meaning a point deduction when these rules come into play.

 

any opinions on what you think of these 3 points or of the change itself please post as I'm interested :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • VT Supporter

Interesting that Villa voted against. Is Randy planning a spending spree? Or just worried that if wages are deflated by this it will be harder to shift our high earners? 

Possibly more that it would make a sale more difficult. Under these rules it's no longer viable to buy a club that needs massive investment to make it competitive, therefore Villa are a less attractive proposition to a potential buyer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2013/feb/07/premier-league-self-interest-fair-play?CMP=twt_gu
 

There has been no great consideration of wider issues affecting football, and the clubs have voted from their own self-interest or peculiarities of opinion

Manchester City, who voted against the proposal to limit losses, have received almost £1bn from Sheikh Mansour. Photograph: Tom Jenkins for the Guardian
Richard Scudamore, the chief executive of the Premier League, said the regulations his clubs have introduced should not be likened to Uefa's financial fair play, and indeed the most striking first impression was how much more slack the 20 clubs have cut for themselves. Uefa's financial fair play rules restrict clubs in European competitions to making total losses of €45m in 2012‑14, while the Premier League's limit, agreed after nine months of discussion, is £105m over three years. That is still a great deal of money to lose between 2013 and 2016, given the £5.5bn bonanza expected to arrive in TV income alone.
 
The rules, the £105m loss and the measures restricting players' wages increases, are clearly a compromise. A deal has been done to reach a middle ground between clubs such as Manchester United, Arsenal, Liverpool and Tottenham Hotspur who wanted a strict implementation of Uefa's €45m limit, and other clubs, including Manchester City, who wanted no restrictions at all.
 
Scudamore argued that these rules will protect the Premier League clubs financially in advance of this deluge of cash. The £105m is only allowed to be lost if an owner has guaranteed it and paid the money in. Losses not guaranteed by owners will be limited to the much more modest £15m over three years. That, the Premier League said, will prevent "another Portsmouth", the notoriously insolvent club that, in administration again, lurched into another tortured twist, with a new bid made to challenge that of the supporters trust, even as the current top 20 clubs were meeting.
 
The compromise is also broader, between a vision of football that has clubs living within their means, and one that wants owners buying them and pouring in cash to buy success. The compromise means the English game is still open to that model, but such an owner is limited to £105m over three years, plus investment in youth training and infrastructure. Scudamore specifically acknowledged that the rules will not allow turbo-fuelling like that of Manchester City, where Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed al-Nahyan has injected around £1bn since 2008 to elevate City from ninth in the Premier League to champions.
 
There will be sanctions for breaching the rule, and Scudamore said they will push for it to be severe, a points deduction if the £105m is seriously overspent. The aim is to allow owners to put serious money into clubs, but not quite so serious as Roman Abramovich and Sheikh Mansour have unleashed into their football ventures.
 
The wage limit is a little odd, and illustrates the greatest frustration with the conduct of these reforms. Most clubs' main aim is to ensure they do not blow the forthcoming vast fortune on ever-inflating players' wages. They have agreed to limit wage bill increases to £4m in 2013, then £8m, then £12m, out of the Premier League's TV income. Clubs, though, can increase wages from commercial revenue – or ticket income.
 
The Premier League says clubs will not be seeking ways to evade the rules because they themselves have introduced them. But this rule builds in an incentive to raise ticket prices – at a time when there is an almighty outcry about the high cost of supporting football.
 
There lies the missed opportunity. These rules do something to restrain overspending, although it is notable they are aimed at a Manchester City project, which at least sees money going in, rather than the Glazers' milking of Manchester United for £550m to pay the interest and costs of their own takeover. This has been pushed for by the American owners of United, Arsenal and Liverpool, who bought English clubs as investments, and have no intention of spending money on them.
 
They, and the other Premier League clubs, three of whom will be relegated at the end of the season, have been allowed to introduce these rules with no reference to the wider game and no involvement of the governing body, the Football Association. They are designed to guard against spending the prospective windfall on player wages, but not tied to any broader discussion, perhaps a commitment to reduce ticket prices, or increase investment in the grass roots. There has been no great consideration of wider issues affecting football, and the clubs have voted from their own self-interest or peculiarities of opinion, passing the rules by the narrowest required majority.
 
Scudamore said they have been on "a journey" from "a fairly low threshold of financial regulation" to a set of rules requiring solvent, non-criminal owners and a reasonably sustainable way to run clubs. Many believe that journey should go a lot further, not just dampen player wages, and the millions owners can spend on the clubs they have bought.

 
Basically means Man United will continue dominate as no one can get anywhere near their turnover.Means other clubs with worldwide fan bases Liverpool for instance will have a huge advantage on us ,means Arsenal and Spurs with high ticket prices will have advantage over us.
 
Makes buying a club a less attractive proposition now as you can not directly influence any change via an influx of funds.It's is laughable that the clubs like Man U who pushed for it under the guise of it keeping the league competitive unlike Spain where Madrid and Barcelona are untouchable..well how exactly can a club like us compete with Man U who have a near £600mil shirt Sponsorship deal.
 
Today is a sad day ,a day when the big secured they will never be challenged ..

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2. is it really any good just the prem agreeing this, cos surely it means other leagues such as spain, italy, france and so on could just become the new playgrounds for the rich and leave all the talent thats in the prem seaching for greener richer pastures abroad.
this is why i dont think it will happen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

2. is it really any good just the prem agreeing this, cos surely it means other leagues such as spain, italy, france and so on could just become the new playgrounds for the rich and leave all the talent thats in the prem seaching for greener richer pastures abroad.
this is why i dont think it will happen

But it has happened it has been agreed via a vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After reading a few articles it seems villa, wba, Fulham, man city, southampton and swansea voted against the proposals, with reading declining to take part in the vote.

Surely the only way forward to an equal, competitive league now is another breakaway league? It happened 20 years ago, back than it was about making money, now the people of the clubs like villa just want fairness and a chance of success, **** the premier league. **** eufa. **** financial fair play. **** sky.

Edited by Jimzk5
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1st step to a european super league IMO, spanish clubs all going bump next...

 

makes the prem a bit **** pointless, cant believe everton didnt join in with us its pretty much ended their chance of being bought and getting a new stadium

 

no doubt the answer is that everyone now finds new revenue streams and increases their income, problem is can any of you see villa getting a multi million quid japanese official paint partner deal anytime soon? the disparity between income is miles bigger than the disparity between potential owners

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After reading a few articles it seems villa, wba, Fulham, man city, southampton and swansea voted against the proposals, with reading declining to take part in the vote.

Surely the only way forward to an equal, competitive league now is another breakaway league? It happened 20 years ago, back than it was about making money, now the people of the clubs like villa just want fairness and a chance of success, **** the premier league. **** eufa. **** financial fair play. **** sky.

 

I think the only way we're going to see a level playing field ever again is if football completely implodes on itself and has to pretty much start from scratch. Personally, I'd very much like to see that happen.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm suprised they talked Chelsea into it ,I can only assume now they have a high enough turnover doing this stops anyone catching them and thus Roman can lighten up on his cash donations.Everton god only knows ,will only lesson their chances of being brought now

 

Villa4Europe  nail on head ..the top 4 will easily find more and more revenue streams the rest of us are screwed.The league will be like Spain now totally dominated by the few with all the money.Whilst the rest of us struggle to increase income Man U can sit comfortable taking in quater of a mill for every F.A cup game they get shown in ..up to 39 in a row now.This meeting has done nothing for fans.How about drawing up regulations for ticket prices to keeps grounds full ? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After reading a few articles it seems villa, wba, Fulham, man city, southampton and swansea voted against the proposals, with reading declining to take part in the vote.

Surely the only way forward to an equal, competitive league now is another breakaway league? It happened 20 years ago, back than it was about making money, now the people of the clubs like villa just want fairness and a chance of success, **** the premier league. **** eufa. **** financial fair play. **** sky.

 

If true, I always thought they needed 14-6 majority to get it passed. Interesting about City stance on it 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • VT Supporter

Barring UEFA taking the final steps required to morph the CL into a Superleague (e.g. having the previous year's group winners automatically qualify for the next year regardless of what they do in their domestic league), the PL at this point doesn't have much of a risk of losing players to other leagues. The new TV deals aren't going to be matched in Europe, what with the broader economic issues and the PL's fundamental advantage in being English-language as far as working out global deals go (English being the language of the world's middle class). In a couple of years, there will be about 25-30 clubs capable of paying most of their first choice players 100k a week, and 20 of them will be English, and it will only be the likes of Barca that can entice players who are worth enticing to leave, say, Fulham.

Of course, this will probably piss off enough of UEFA that they will take the final steps to make the CL into a Superleague and take global TV money from the PL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Comment from an article about this ruling on the Guardian... a bit of a generic rant, but couldn't agree more:

 

 

The Premiership, Sky and UEFA have destroyed football. Not just in this country but all across Europe.

England once had a top division where a team could be promoted one season and be crowned champions of England the next (Notts Forest 77-78). The supporters and chairman of every team in the league started the season with the hope that maybe, just maybe, this could be their year. And by their year I mean to WIN it. It was mostly a dream, most years it didn't happen, but it was at least possible.

Now there is a league where the height of almost all of the team's ambition is to stay in the league - relegation meaning (relative) financial disaster. Those with higher ambitions aim to finish in the TOP 4!!!, hailing this as some sort of major achievement as it guarantees entry to the equally obscene champions league. (A competition that, thanks to it's use of seeding, practically guarantees safe passage for the same teams year-in, year-out-stretching, presumably, to infinity.)

In reality England has a league that only 3, possibly 4 teams have any chance of winning. And 2 of those teams are there, not because of the brilliance of a Busby, Clough or Ferguson - not because of the team spirit of a Notts Forest or the steady, cumulative growth of a Liverpool - but because of hundreds of millions of pounds spent by billionaire owners.

The SPORT of football has been obliterated. It is now like a playground game of football where the two captains line up to pick the teams and instead of picking players alternately, one guy gets to pick all of his team first and the other fella is left with the spotty herberts, fat bob and the ginger. One team is sure to destroy the other but what joy is there in it?

The English league is a pitiful excuse for a sporting competition. Which is, actually, a national tragedy.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Martin Samual said it in a article couple of weeks ago.This was the clubs giving up chasing united and being content to pick up scraps of Champs league money.

Its also about owners being able to keep cash themselves from clubs with US owners apart from Randy.It Nfl ,NHL without compeitiveness.Uniteds revenue before their 550 mil shirt sponsor and various other new sponsors was 300 mil plus how the **** is anyone going to be able to compete without a wealthy owner.Its also why FSG brought liverpool they could see this coming and Liverpools huge fan base giving them an advantage.

Now we will see stadium renaming ,calls for more sponsorship on shirts and ticket price increases.The Prem league just **** itself

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep, agree with that Guardian comment.    This just puts another nail in the coffin for me - I'm getting pretty hacked off with the whole thing really.  Villa will never, ever again win the league.   Sky and the Premier League have indeed ruined football.  To be fair to him Tom Ross always said that Sky would ruin football - he was right.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This will also mean relegation for us will damage us even further, lower revenue from the championship means if we we go down then come back up, our spending power will be determined by our revenue from the championship?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

exclamation-mark-man-user-icon-with-png-and-vector-format-227727.png

Ad Blocker Detected

This site is paid for by ad revenue, please disable your ad blocking software for the site.

Â