John from Bootle
Player Valuation: £8m
Don't think anybody is saying it's acceptable, and them rules don't apply to the lower leagues, so that's a moot point.
Don't think anybody is saying it's acceptable, and them rules don't apply to the lower leagues, so that's a moot point.
Apparently according to the report (can’t remember exact wording)…. This is a type of situation which all businesses can expect to face.
Like it’s an every day occurance…
Iana
Player Valuation: £1m
That makes no sense.
The PL rule book states the sanction for administration is 9 points and that is agreed by all clubs.
There is no higher standard or aspiration for one in the PL rule book and certainly not one that has been approved by all 20
Clubs.
Do you think PL clubs who are not in administration should be given a higher points deduction than those who are?
Will have to accept low prices as well because we need to sell. It's like selling a house when you're emigrating.
Yeah, Moshiri bought a midfield at a point during the four year period in an attempt to improve Everton. It was a gamble, and they would have expected a better league position to result from it. That's the chance the report talks about, a gamble as old as football. A ridiculous thing to say in evidence, but far from an admittance of a deliberate breach.
It's pretty strange: you quote the report over and again at people, yet every element, Moshiri's midfield, Players X and Y, the loan interest, you characterise as Everton's deliberate attempts to beat the rules, when it's a central conclusion of the report that they weren't.
Iana
Player Valuation: £1m
There is no sanction in the PL rule book for acting recklessly and breaching PSR but not going into administration so should PL clubs be sanctioned harder than those PL clubs that go administration ?
It’s a simple question…
You're not a politician, are you? Why not just answer the question? It only requires a Yes or No.
HowardsWay
Player Valuation: £6m
If they go into admin then there are penalties.
On another note, UEFA has a threshold of 60M and a spending cap of 70% on wages by 25/26. I've seen some reference to the rules changing in the Premier League in August but from what I could see during the Parliamentary Committee meeting they were talking of trying to align themselves with this in 25/26 and not this year. So, if that is correct, the FFP limit will then be lowered for Prem. teams. Can see more fun and games then!
John from Bootle
Player Valuation: £8m
Yeah, of course, but my point was the rule only applies to Premier League clubs.
Losses have to be allowed. If Liverpool, for example, suddenly hit the buffers, and crash out of the top 4 and finish 17th, then there could potentially be a hole in their finances, as they'd lose out on huge sums they've probably budgeted for.
Maybe they'd still not make losses, but I assume they budget for top 4, and I'm using it as an example of the potential unpredictable nature of football finances.
HowardsWay
Player Valuation: £6m
Which part makes no sense?
The penalty for admin is apparently 9pts in the Prem because they play fewer games. In the Champ. it is 10pts. That rule is known to all clubs before a season starts.
I agree there is currently no higher standard or aspiration in the Prem but I'd argue that the elite 20 clubs in the country should be financially sound.
To me, and just my opinion, allowing clubs to lose 105M every three years gives those 20 clubs significant advantages over clubs in the Championship or lower.
This is why we see the playing standard between the leagues ever widening and why promoted teams usually get relegated. To me, it's the same argument we have about the top 6 teams in the Prem and the middle teams. At what point does the gap between teams start to even out? Never, the way things are run now.
Answering your question about PL clubs in admin, yes, on balance I probably do. I do think entering admin should have a higher penalty than breaking FFP or PSR.
Daytripper
Player Valuation: £35m
Answer the man’s question directly, not dance around it
HowardsWay
Player Valuation: £6m
So we're basically protecting those teams that fail to perform on the pitch and giving them a second chance?
If Liverpool or any other team are arrogant enough to think they can never have a bad season or never finish out of the top 4 and this is how their management team budgets, then they should pay the consequences.
Sorry, but to my limited business brain, losing money is foreign to me. It's the path to ruin but somehow, Prem. league teams are getting away with saying they should be an exception to the rule that isn't the same for all the other teams in English football. If that is what we / they are saying is acceptable, and that is what it appears to be right now, then there is no hope for the game and supporters of other teams who have any ambition.
But they'll happily push Everton close to the brink as a punishment?
I swear, if one more person says sporting advantage...
Yay, this again, yay!
John from Bootle
Player Valuation: £8m
First of all, at this level, 105 million over three years is a drop in the ocean for some. It's 5 years of Salah's wages.
You think every club should budget to finish 17th then? I'll be honest, it wouldn't be a terrible rule to implement, in terms of making it more competitive, and I personally wouldn't be opposed to that, but to be a top team, you have to pay top money, ergo budget to be a top team. That's just the way the game is. I'm not saying it's right or fair, but whilst that is the case, then losses have to be allowed.
