New FFP Rules/Salary Cap

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

Was thinking that it is a shame that the proposed new Park End development failed.

If you can't spend the new TV money on wages then spend it on IMPROVING GOODISON so that revenue is increased.

That's exactly why I think this sort of regulation is a positive, as it'll encourage the new TV cash to be used on infrastructure investment, as increasing revenue, rather than waiting for the billionaire, is going to be the more pragmatic option.

 

[Coach]

Man Utd, Man City and Chelsea have triple our wage bill.

Arsenal and Liverpool double.

All clubs with a wage bill over £52m can only increase it by a maximum of £4m per season - even if we got a billionaire capable of lashing out the mythical £105m over three seasons we still wouldn't be able to pay the wages necessary to sign top players.

This just cements the status quo.

 

[Jags..class]

Man Utd, Man City and Chelsea have triple our wage bill.

Arsenal and Liverpool double.

All clubs with a wage bill over £52m can only increase it by a maximum of £4m per season - even if we got a billionaire capable of lashing out the mythical £105m over three seasons we still wouldn't be able to pay the wages necessary to sign top players.

This just cements the status quo.

At least another Man city cant happen in our league.

 

[Ratkiller]

Yeah true Dave, but it wouldn't stop a Billionaire taking over a 'second tier' PL club & spending his money as he wishes for 3 years, as the UEFA regulations have a 3 year total overspend limit as well.So it wouldn't affect his club if they didn't qualify for European competition until year 2.

But if you can't increase the wages then the top players aren't going to sign for you. Irrespective of the £105 million you could spend.

The big clubs who've already got big squads can get round it. We can't.

 

[Jacko93]

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.

Everton, it seems, are one of the least shown teams in the league. We are shown in less countries than many other Prem teams.

 

[mythbuster]

I honestly believe these regulations could help us in our search for investment. Any potential wealthy investors(in footy in general) will know they will not be able to spunk money on new players. However, there is no restrictions on investing in infrastructure. A 300 million investment into a new stadium for Everton might well now be the most appealing option for anybody wanting to take a club to the 'next level.'

 

[Essex Blue]

I'm not sure, which is why I'm asking the question, but I think this salary increase cap only applies to how TV money is spent? You can still increase your wage bill by more than 4 million, just as long as you are using an alternative revenue stream?

It gives clubs an incentive to achieve better revenue streams from sources other than TV money, and also gives them extra cash to invest in infrastructure because only so much of the TV money can go on wages?

 

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

I'm not sure, which is why I'm asking the question, but I think this salary increase cap only applies to how TV money is spent? You can still increase your wage bill by more than 4 million, just as long as you are using an alternative revenue stream?

It gives clubs an incentive to achieve better revenue streams from sources other than TV money, and also gives them extra cash to invest in infrastructure because only so much of the TV money can go on wages?

Yes & it's only the PL TV revenue. So anything incrementally created from other areas can be spent over & above the £4m cap.

 

[Pabbers]

Thats why United have a diffeent sponsor for training kits, and have a different sponsor for Carrington.

They will have each door at the club with a different sponsorship soon.

We should be looking at the same with Finch farm, training kits etc.


Didnt Spurs have different Kit sponsors for Europe ?? Even a different home kit ???

 

[njligernj]

At least another Man city cant happen in our league.

Why do you think that? They gave themselves 400 million pounds in a sponsorship deal. I know UEFA recently "warned" them but nothing has actually been done yet (AFAIK).

This will just maintain the status quo. Toothless rule which the big clubs will find a way to circumvent. Even if they don't allow 400 million to go through they might "compromise" with 200 million. Add in tens of millions you might be able to sneak in via other channels and the added income you could create via improving infrastructure (which doesn't count against your spend total) and the 100 million you are allowed to write off and we're talking about 400 million plus you can likely get away with quite easily. Okay it's not a billion but it's still giving them a significant advantage.

Shouting at a wall here but the best aspect of US sports to copy isn't salary caps (which only the NFL have close to right anyway -- the NBA and MLB caps aren't strong and they still have a rich-poor gulf while the NHL is a mess) or wage/turnover restrictions. The part which makes US sports more competitively even is that for the money clubs to obtain young players from other teams is basically impossible. Nobody can move (without huge penalties) from the team which developed/drafted them until they've served a set number of years (which varies from sport to sport but they all pretty much have similar rules). So lots of smaller market teams have some of the best players in the league. They can still cash in with the rich teams at a certain point but not until they've given that first team enough years. I guess this would fall foul of EU laws but it's the best part of US sports and way more of a reason for their success and parity (along with the draft done in reverse order of standings) than salary caps.

It could perhaps be done as a large mandatory sell-on clause (75% or so) for any player sold under the age of (26?) but all leagues would have to agree for it to work. Perhaps a tier based on the league of the selling club (25% for 3rd and 4th divisions; 50% for championship and 75% for top league to top league transfer).

 

[efcfanwirral]

Great article on the topic here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324077704578357992271428024.html

Make the rich richer and the poor poorer....reflective of society in general you might say....

 

[toffeestillidie]

I think it would work better if the rules only applied to the highest spending clubs in Europe, maybe the top 2%. Not sure how they would implement that, or where they would draw the cutoff, but I think it's clear that while the restrictions have some positives, they will make it very difficult for smaller clubs to compete.

 

[njligernj]

Great article on the topic here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324077704578357992271428024.html Make the rich richer and the poor poorer....reflective of society in general you might say....

Thanks for posting that. Hadn't considered that the ECJ could strike it down ... although this article is mostly hoping they would rather than saying there is any chance of them looking at it.

 

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

Thanks for posting that. Hadn't considered that the ECJ could strike it down ... although this article is mostly hoping they would rather than saying there is any chance of them looking at it.

Given that it was written by a lawyer specialising in European law, then I think he's flying a kite tbh