IF that is really true, then why would a club like Everton vote to introduce it?
Blue Heart
Player Valuation: £500k
Did any P L club vote against the rules? Or were most owners only too pleased to have the rule book as fall guy when supporters expected greater ambition / spending?
For the proposal to be passed, two-thirds (66.67%) of votes cast had to support the change. In the end, six clubs voted against and one club abstained meaning 68.4% voted for the change. The clubs that voted against the changes were:
Against: Man City, Fulham, Aston Villa, West Brom, Swansea, Southampton.
Abstained: Reading abstained
Premier League clubs adopt spending constraints
Very good point. I don't know the voting split but presumably it was voted in by the majority of PL teams at the time .
Unintended consequences? I think not.
Gilbert..
Player Valuation: £40m
Voted for PSR. Didnt vote on the sanctions framework. That was introduced after.
Lloydaldo11
Player Valuation: £1m
If I remember, the publicity was more towards stopping another Chelsea circumventing the rules to buy the league and very little on Leeds and Portsmouth.
May well have been the pitch voted on had a very different context to the reality where only now, ten years later, a sanction framework has been created seemingly to address outside scrutiny from government.
The timeline on all this is the suspect for appeal not if we voted for it or not as another poster rightly points out that we likely didn’t vote on a sanction framework that for all intent and purpose didn’t exist until we were charged and didn’t seem to be applied where other clubs have breached the rules over the last ten years.
May well have been the pitch voted on had a very different context to the reality where only now, ten years later, a sanction framework has been created seemingly to address outside scrutiny from government.
The timeline on all this is the suspect for appeal not if we voted for it or not as another poster rightly points out that we likely didn’t vote on a sanction framework that for all intent and purpose didn’t exist until we were charged and didn’t seem to be applied where other clubs have breached the rules over the last ten years.
PeregrineT
Player Valuation: £35m
I think its quite possible it was pitched as stopping another Chelsea, and only after it was implemented for a few years did clubs truly realize the impact it would have. The revenue disparity also may not have been as great at that time? Im not sure.
There is no sanctions framework.
The premier league suggested one to the commision but they rejected it.
Gilbert..
Player Valuation: £40m
Exactly. Swap introduced for made up.
Interesting thing happening this window, very little business being done by PL clubs, seems the threat of PAS has caused a demand downturn in the market, this and the secondary effects are going to be interesting to see.
Compare it to last year PL clubs spent £840 mil, odd in the month.
Compare it to last year PL clubs spent £840 mil, odd in the month.
Wasn't 839m of that Chelsea though ?
Just the 820mill over 75 year contracts.
Last edited:
If the commision accepted it they could have got it in the rulebook.
Thankfully they rejected it as it helps us.
Tony’s Carp
Player Valuation: £40m
Yeah, reaching FFP gridlock. We need to be wary if our solution to this year’s FFP is to sell someone before 30 June as we did with Richarlison because if no one has the headroom they’ll all be planning to buy from 1 July.
