Bournemouth, Brentford, Brighton, Crystal Palace, Fulham and Leeds voted against the change.
Looking at those clubs, does it really play against clubs solely based on the "buy to sell" approach
All clubs whose owners are just happy to exist in the league.
Yh. The EPL could learn a lot from US sports in that regard.
We can also include concerts and events at BMD in the revenue for this as “footballing costs”.
Premier League clubs to be banned from selling assets to themselves
Clubs will no longer be able to sell assets like hotels and women's teams to themselves from next season as the Premier League moves to a new system of Financial Fair Play.www.bbc.co.uk
helpimonfire
Player Valuation: £35m
Quick! Sell Goodison to the tea lady!
Another set of rules to maintain the status quo of clubs with the biggest revenues.
imo anything that restricts a benevolent owner from spending what they want is anti competitive.
Protect the clubs from the wanton waste of owners who load unsustainable debt on the clubs of course, but there must be a mechanism that allows a billionaire to blow their money as they see fit.
Maybe these share options that TFG keep doing are that mechanism, but capping spend against revenue is grotesque favouritism towards Man U, Liverpool etc
All have tiny grounds.
Whatever rules would have come in is unfortunate but they will always have an advantage. Is about us being the best of the rest try catch up to the group of newcastle villa
duncs pigeon
Player Valuation: £35m
Always been the case since ffp started, their rules to protect themselves.
I've said from the start ffp, and psr was always top loaded. They waited for the 6 to get everything in place, squad, stadium, commercial revenues etc, then effectively shut the door behind them. They could have introduced a handicap system, where the clubs earning less had more leeway so they could get on a par with the 6 , but they didn't want parity.
The obvious counterargument is to point to Villa and Newcastle qualifying for the CL, but look at the cost, both having to sell players after them runs.
All in my opinion to stop the clubs that could attract the big investment but lay outside the gang from breaking up the party.
The feeder clubs, happy to buy and supply, and take the scraps in return were ok, untill now it seems they're coming for them now too.
The obvious counterargument is to point to Villa and Newcastle qualifying for the CL, but look at the cost, both having to sell players after them runs.
All in my opinion to stop the clubs that could attract the big investment but lay outside the gang from breaking up the party.
The feeder clubs, happy to buy and supply, and take the scraps in return were ok, untill now it seems they're coming for them now too.
This thing about no fines for exceeding the 'green line' next season is interesting. I wonder if we might see ambitious clubs without Europe (IE, no UEFA rules to abide) go on a big spending spree next summer.
Basically we could spend 115% of revenue next summer with no repercussion apart from having to restrict back to 85% the season after.
First season in the new stadium means that revenue will have jumped a lot too.
Looking forward to being back in the position of desperately trying to buy players but the players themselves saying nah haha.
Basically we could spend 115% of revenue next summer with no repercussion apart from having to restrict back to 85% the season after.
First season in the new stadium means that revenue will have jumped a lot too.
Looking forward to being back in the position of desperately trying to buy players but the players themselves saying nah haha.
Welcome
Join Grand Old Team to get involved in the Everton discussion. Signing up is quick, easy, and completely free.
Shop
