They need to change FFP, it isn’t working. And as far as a salary cap goes, if they’re going to do it, they need to do it as a squad salary cap, not an individual player salary cap. Which means teams can still compete for the best players, salary wise
You want competition then just put a flat squad salary cap. That’ll never happen though as this is about making things easier for the top 6 & allowing them to continue spending massively.
It's only fair though as they are the reason the premiership is biggest in the world, especially Manchester United who are the main reason and they have made all the other teams known around the world is teams like west ham, everton, Sheffield etc play terrible football and no one around the world would know them if not for Manchester United. There was even talk of calling it the Ferguson premier league which I believe everyone would like to happen
It needs to change let the lower teams with rich owners spend so they can compete at the top, the premier league needs to stop protecting the so called top 6
That's how we ended up with the Man City problem, all that would do is increase player transfer fees and make lower clubs without rich owners be even more screwed
Rich owners don't want to have to pump in huge sums of money every year to cover enormous operating losses. But if some of your competitors are doing it, you feel like you have to do it too. This is why every club, even those with rich owners, has voted to adopt the 85% squad cost control ratio. If there were no financial controls then transfer fees and wages would spiral out of control, and then it becomes a race to the bottom, a race to see which club goes into administration first. Pumping in a lot of money doesn't guarantee anything anyway. Look at Everton. Their owners have pumped in over £700m, and look at the state of them. They've massively underperformed, and they're a financial basketcase BECAUSE of that unsustainable business model of relying on owner funding every year to keep their heads above water.
There are three types of people in the comment section: Man City haters, people laughing at the Man City haters, and thirsty dudes wanting to know who the lady is in the nice dress. 🤣😂
The only thing that will be fair is to fine clubs who have failed ffp and put it into a pot to help lower league teams and teams that have not failed FFP. Simple as.
As simple as that!!! Why try to make an investor trying to invest in a business he bought look like a crime? Why even allow him to buy the business if he can't invest in it!
@@NATAR160 Because it’s cheating. How can small Newcastle become the richest club over night when teams like Liverpool Madrid Bayern have been battling for many many years
@@unclegooner7870 That's how investment works. Otherwise, don't sell business to ppl who have the ability to use their funds to transform it overnight. What's the purpose of bringing billionaires into a business they cannot transform thru funding the business??? What's their purpose in the business? To be dragged behind by rules that says the business shd remain mediocre forever?
Have you read the rules? It would anchor top clubs to spending 4.5 x that of the revenue of smaller clubs. The ONLY club that will directly be impacted by this is CITY, since they are currently spending more than the anchoring sum would allowed, meaning they would have to sell a few players or cut down on their wage bill. Maybe next time READ what the rules are
Manchester City violated the regulations under the previous framework, and these violations will be addressed according to the previous rules. Any new regulations will apply to infractions occurring after their implementation.
How about for every PL transfer and agent fee, between 1% and 5% is skimmed/taxed off the cost. If the transfer is over a set PSR value, that percentage increases drastically to 20%. The same as standard VAT. That pot of cash is then distributed amongst all the EFL clubs equally. Recent Chelsea transfer spending alone at 1% would be something like £125,000 per club. In this way you can go ham investing all you like. But you’re helping the rest of the English game improve and get better. If a club takes the piss, then there are charges. Solves the EFL argument on funding simultaneously. Then it’s back to familiar of the table being decided on the football pitch and not at an accountants office.
My dad just bought a corner shop. Before we buy snickers bars we need to balance to books so he’s sold the Twixes. next month he’s looking to get some whispers golds in so we’re gonna offload the Twixes. Next winter we’re have our eye on Luzosade sport but we’re waiting approval as we’ve not sold enough whispers therefore we would of over spent if we do. What we’re gonna do is sell the twixes to the shop down the road then buy them back because technically that will mean we’re able to spend more. Paving the way for the Luzosade. I honestly don’t see what all the fuss is about. It’s simple as that.
While I agreed with the basis, football is much harder to operate using general business governance. It’s not uncommon to have a deep red year that hopefully should be balanced out over time. Say you are in UCL and earning 100m, you built a squad with wages at 70m. However, you didn’t qualified for UCL next season and your estimated revenue is down to 60m because two stars were out injured. Now you have to sell both stars to maintain the book. This would prohibit any sort of ambitious move and would make the life of those promoted teams even worse. On the flip side, say your club get a donation of 500m from “fans”. Now they can pay whatever and outmuscle/devalue the other teams. It’s a difficult problem but we need to ask why do we need such a thing. Is it for the fairness of the teams in that league or to prevent the club heritage from bad ownership who lost interest in them. IMO, any club should be allowed an injection of cash to spend up to certain point per season. This can tie to the league position they finished in, think of it as optional revenue. So if small club want to invest in for that season, they can do so for extra push. Then use the last 5 seasons finishing position as aggregated so one hit wonder doesn’t just splurge into doom after an accidental spell. They can require set-aside cash to be reserved at club based on wages(x%) to help ease their downfall and delay asset stripping of a club. Without agenda, I’m sure those people are much smarter than me to come up with an adequate rule to help governs the clubs.
Premier League is a joke,firstly, allowing teams to lose 105 million over 3 years,second, bringing in technology (VAR) that still causes more issues than it solves,then taking points off teams mid-season ,and now shutting the stable door when the horse is in the next county.Allowing Jimmy Hill to abolish the maximum wage was ridiculous !
Any smaller teams that don't have Big revenue to compete then they should sale the club to whoever that can manage it, for exp: if Aston Villa qualified for champions League they should know buy players because of others smallest team tell me how the team will survive in that competition, 20 to 50 years that cup will never come to England.
The fans are part of the problem they are way to loyal to the players and the clubs they need to protest and make their voice heard and not act like loyal sheep they put up with everything . The club spending and player salarys is way to dispproportionate to the average working class joe. There is no reason a sports celebrity should earn more than a normal person makes in a life time times 10. Its not healthy and its not sustainable.
It's only fair that the big teams get advantage as they are the reason the premiership is biggest in the world, especially Manchester United who are the main reason and they have made all the other teams known around the world ie teams like west ham, everton, Sheffield etc play terrible football and no one around the world would know them if not for Manchester United agreeing to play them.There was even talk of calling it the Ferguson premier league which I believe everyone would like to happen as all these other clubs are forever in Manchester United's debt
If you weren't so stupid you'd know why, City deny the charges whereas Everton and Forest admit theirs, that's why they've been docked and City haven't as yet as they haven't been found guilty yet.
Manchester City violated the regulations under the previous framework, and these violations will be addressed according to the previous rules. Any new regulations will apply to infractions occurring after their implementation.
I think “fair” isn’t the right word to use here. How is it “fair” to limit spend on clubs that generate revenue through legal channels? More competitive, maybe. Fair? Very questionable.
Well the current rules are also not “fair” clubs who have ambition have to sell their best players to tick the box even though theyre in no financial debt or strain Clubs with huge debt can keep spending because theyve locked in high revenues which other clubs will never be able to catch It works both ways
@@n9ne_nufc I don't see it this way. I like the idea of setting a spending cap in principle, although a lot of the issues we complain about now will still happen, albeit with clubs having accumulated more debt. I say it’s unfair because it’s essentially telling a person who legally generates enough to afford a Lamborghini not to buy anything more expensive than a Lexus just because the neighbor can only afford a Toyota. Clubs that are “forced” to sell their best assets are doing so because they are close to or past the debt limit and may want to improve their squads but must balance their books to do so. FFP, though flawed, says spend as much as you want as long as a) you don’t pass the set limit. This was a measure put in place to prevent clubs from recklessly continuing to accumulate debt in the pursuit of “ambition” while jeopardizing the club's existence. A club that has spent a ton to acquire great assets can’t blindly continue to spend, blowing past the set limit. If you’re at the limit, you have a few choices: keep player(s) and don’t dip into the market or increase the club’s revenue (commercial, asset sales) to allow for squad development. It’s a choice. b) the money being spent is revenue generated by the club. This was implemented to prevent nation-states and the like from pouring in endless resources with the added effect of distorting the market. Ultimately, I'd like to see a happy medium (if such a thing exists). Organizations that aren’t run sustainably eventually go under. Allow for competitive spend as long as it’s within the clubs means. A spending cap that doesn’t feel like self-sabotage will also be a win
No salary cap yet, ffp is gone replaced by psr which itself is now being replaced. Ffp and psr are about clubs not being able to spend a certain amount above what they generate over any two year period.
Not sure if youve seen the numbers but most teams would be able to spend more than they have last season. Only City and Chelsea were slightly above the threshold The rule likely wont pass because the “big 6” clubs will do everything in their power to block this as its a means to close the gap on them but it most definitely wouldnt make English teams unable to compete in Europe
@n9ne_nufc when real and psg are spending whatever they like, how are arsenal, liverpool meant to compete. As you said city is over the limit and yet they still can't make semi. It'll make PL harder to win too
@@zaw05 I dont care about how Arsenal and Liverpool are able to compete with PSG if Newcastle are unable to compete with Arsenal and Liverpool The City example you have used is poor really because they battered Madrid and went out on penalties and the figures refer to last season when they won the trebble anyway We were unlucky not to go through our group and took 4 points off PSG with a team full of relegation players so I have no worries about being able to compete with teams like PSG, the rules need to be changed so EVERYONE can spend not just the teams you care about at the “top”
@n9ne_nufc of cos not. You only care about your team, you don't care about the clubs in your league doing well in Europe. Consequently your team won't be able to compete in Europe and PL won't get extra qualification spot🙃
There not allowed to speculate on city charges no main stream media are. CITY said they will sue anyone who uses defamatory language about us in the main stream
in american leagues, teams have been forced to move on from essential players due to salary caps and them not being able to resign and stay within that cap. imagine your best player moving on simply because you cannot pay them
Football is a dying sport. Big clubs should remain big clubs. It’s fun seeing upsets. It’s fun seeing stories like Leicester winning league. Making everyone equal means Bournemouth top of league Liverpool in 18th? Nahhh bro
