New FFP Rules/Salary Cap

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'd like to know how reliant we are on the TV deals now for wages. What from the current squad would we need to lose to comply?

Whatever way its interpreted, it'll make out lives even harder (at best) and at worst....
I dont think it will affect much at all really. Will just stop QPR doing what theyve done again. Maybe stop City, but only if owners cant just write the debt off. Its only the tv money thats carrying penalties isnt it?
Edit:Aside from the 105 million over 3 years in debt. That does affect us as we cant borrow the money to spend.
 
http://gu.com/p/3djnp/tw

Premier League clubs will be docked points if they fail to comply with new financial control measures designed to curb rampant wage inflation and stem losses when their new £5.5bn TV deal kicks in next season.

The league's chief executive, Richard Scudamore, claimed that the measures, which will curb wage bill increases in the short term and force clubs to cut losses in the long term, would bring to an end the era of rampant short-term spending and make clubs more stable.

From 2013-14 onwards, clubs will be limited to losses of £105m over three seasons based on their audited accounts. As with Uefa's stricter financial fair play rules, money invested in youth development and infrastructure can be discounted from the calculations.

Under the complex new rules, which have been intensely debated around the Premier League boardroom table since the summer, when it became clear that they were on course to share a £5.5bn TV income bonanza, clubs with a wage bill in excess of £52m will be able to increase it by only £4m per year from 2013-14.

However, further increases to the wage bill are permissible in line with any uplift in a club's commercial or match-day income – the curbs apply only to the central TV money distributed by the league. On the latest available figures, only seven clubs would be under the £52m cap.

In future, Scudamore said, the rules would ensure that no other owner would be able to come into English football and invest hundreds of millions of pounds overnight to compete for the title, as first Roman Abramovich at Chelsea and then Sheikh Mansour at Manchester City have done.

"A new owner or even an existing owner with a change in attitude or a change in fortunes can invest proportionally a decent amount of money to improve their club," he said. "But what they aren't going to be doing is throwing hundreds of millions at it in a very short period of time. I'm not criticising that; I've been supportive of them, supportive of what they have done to make it a more competitive league."

But Scudamore said that if new owners with deep pockets wanted to come into the league in the future "it's going to have to be done in a slightly longer-term way without the huge losses being made".

Three clubs – Chelsea, Manchester City and Liverpool – would have fallen foul of the rules if they had been in place between 2008 and 2011. Abramovich has poured £1bn into the London club since he bought it a decade ago and won his first Premier League title in his second season as owner.

The Premier League claimed the rules would allow smaller and newly promoted clubs to invest sufficiently to challenge for Europe, while also promoting greater sustainability and controlling wage inflation.

But Scudamore made it clear any clubs that breached the limit could expect tough sanctions, including points deductions. At present, any club entering administration is docked nine points.

Owners of clubs making a loss will be required to cover any deficit and guarantee their funding for the three years that follow, which Scudamore said was a major step forward. Anyone buying the club would have take on those guarantees.

"From a fairly low threshold of financial regulation we have had a journey," he said. "This is a leap but an extension of where we were heading anyway. This is a fairly decent leap into the tightening up, particularly the future guarantees."

Despite the unprecedented riches that have flowed into the coffers of top-flight clubs during the Premier League era, clubs made losses of £361m last year despite record income of £2.3bn.

Scudamore said that such was the uplift in TV revenue that clubs would not be forced to spend less but that the measures would put the brakes on further inflation. "We shouldn't be worried about the competitiveness of the league in terms of our ability to attract players," he said.

The development of the new controls has been contentious. The so-called "gang of four" – Arsenal, Tottenham Hotspur, Manchester United and Liverpool – had strongly argued that the Premier League should adopt the same spending limits as Uefa.

The top clubs in the Premier League have to comply with the Uefa rules from this season, which limit losses to €45m over a three-year period and will be assessed for the first time next spring.

But others argued that the limits should be set higher to allow sustainable spending by smaller clubs with ambitions to challenge for Europe.

Six clubs – Manchester City, Fulham, West Bromwich Albion, Southampton, Swansea and Aston Villa – are believed to have voted against any restrictions for a range of reasons and Reading to have abstained, so the vote narrowly got the necessary two-thirds constitutional majority.

Fulham want their owner, Mohamed Al Fayed, who recently converted his loans to equity to leave the club debt-free, to be able to continue to pour money into the club.

West Bromwich Albion, on the other hand, believe that they are able to continue to run the club sustainably without the need for new regulation and that the new rules will harm their competitive advantage.

The sports minister, Hugh Robertson, said the new regulations were a "welcome and positive move".
 
Last edited:
My opinion on all this is: nothing in football would be allowed to pass that would cause damage to the real (commercially) big clubs (and that does include Liverpool) . So whatever rules come in will i in some way benefit those with big commercial revenues simply because they are who the majority pay to see, and in turn it can't benefit a club like everton who borrow against long term future money. Like government - NO government policies will actually benefit the poor over the rich. Make the rich richer and keep the poor poor, or poorer

Also, as we basically pay wages based on loans against future TV money (so we never actually spend that year's TV money) aren't we by default in breach?
 
Messi's wage broken down: £265k a week, £37.8k a day, £1,570k an hour, £785 every 30 mins, £392 every 15 mins, £26 a minute, 43p a second.

I imagine that's calculated over 24 hours as well, what's his 9-5 rate? Ha ha.

Anyway, that wage increase cap applies to the club and not the player. Not sure if this is that good news after all?
 

For a 40 hr week he'd be on £6,625 an hour! Wonder if he gets time and half or double time O/T? lol

That wage cap is solely from the TV money, I think chairmen can use their own money to fund extra pay increase, but there'd be checks on doing so.

In year one of this cap, clubs can add £4 million to the wages from the TV money, this would roughly be equivalent to two players on £40k a week
 
For a 40 hr week he'd be on £6,625 an hour! Wonder if he gets time and half or double time O/T? lol

That wage cap is solely from the TV money, I think chairmen can use their own money to fund extra pay increase, but there'd be checks on doing so.

In year one of this cap, clubs can add £4 million to the wages from the TV money, this would roughly be equivalent to two players on £40k a week

Of course, that leaves the clubs with the big commercial revenues in good shape as it clears the decks of any competition for signatures that could ramp up their own costs. Their wage bill would presumably come down over time (unless the Bundesliga, for example, started to compete on wages).

It has the feel of a drawbridge being pulled up.

Scudamore is a reptile - probably the most repugnant man in football.
 
It makes it more important than ever to get rid of the current part time board and management and get some people in with a clue about how to capitalise in being one of the largest teams in the world's most viewed league.

Everton are a HUGE brand, exposed on TV to millions around the globe every week. Yet we employ people with zero experience in promoting brands and end up with terrible commercial deals.

I think Elstone still thinks he's at Castleford Tigers when he 'negotiates' our deals.
 
Something about not being allowed to increase your annual wage bill by more than £4 million if it was already £52 million or more ? Thats what I gathered from SSN.
 

Well that happens = no TV deal which = no Everton FC

Would you stop supporting Everton?

Do you think Leeds, West Ham, Spurs, Villa, Newcastle, Sunderland, Forest, Derby fans etc would jib their clubs in favour of Utd and Chelsea? or do you think the remaining clubs would get their act together drop prices to attract bigger crowds, create standing areas do a deal with the BBC reinvigorate the local team ethos and attack the satellite tv monopoly?

Another thread bemoans the lack of atmosphere at GP a comment applicable to every other club in the prem. A fight on this scale having a common enemy would revive football;

Among the great majority the words "fck 'em" would reverberate as new domestic leagues evolved the same would happen throughout europe.

If you were Utd, Chelsea and Liverpool would you be confident the rest would lie down and die? - that's the real reason it hasn't happened.
 
Of course, that leaves the clubs with the big commercial revenues in good shape as it clears the decks of any competition for signatures that could ramp up their own costs. Their wage bill would presumably come down over time (unless the Bundesliga, for example, started to compete on wages).

It has the feel of a drawbridge being pulled up.

Scudamore is a reptile - probably the most repugnant man in football.
Basically, youve said what i have been trying to say all through the thread. It just seems to me to further polarise the haves and have nots in the league.
 
Basically, youve said what i have been trying to say all through the thread. It just seems to me to further polarise the haves and have nots in the league.

That's what scum like Scudamore are determined to achieve. He's not interested in broadening out competition, just concerned about preserving the financial integrity of the PL - and if that means hobbling some clubs and creating an elite that can never be toppled, so what.
 
If you were Utd, Chelsea and Liverpool would you be confident the rest would lie down and die? - that's the real reason it hasn't happened.

Not really - why would Utd, Chelsea and the ****e want a super league when everyone else goes along with the majority of their whims and helps to fund their business models as it is? For all the talk about how the non-Sky clubs should resist, those in the PL (or who want to be in the PL) dont rock the boat when they are in it.

The problem that football in this country has is that clubs are run by the same sort of people who have trashed the economy, and administered by - in the main - the same sort of people who administered the other people as they trashed the economy. Until both parts are fixed (the first by having many more fan owned clubs, the second by destroying FA headquarters when Hibbert scores in the cup final) english football is doomed.
 
Of course, that leaves the clubs with the big commercial revenues in good shape as it clears the decks of any competition for signatures that could ramp up their own costs. Their wage bill would presumably come down over time (unless the Bundesliga, for example, started to compete on wages).

It has the feel of a drawbridge being pulled up.

Scudamore is a reptile - probably the most repugnant man in football.

woolies-1.jpg

Closed_Shop.jpg
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top