Financial Fair Play (general thread)

BehindEnemyLines · Apr 25, 2024

Westmorlandspur said:
What about paying him off. Will not have the amortisation but will cost a fair whack of his salary.

Nope, you'd still effectively have the amortisation charge........ It's just that it would be badged as either a £12m loss on player sales or a £12m impairment charge or £12m write off...... Depending how it was structured.

cwy21 · Apr 25, 2024

Should have taken a few semesters of accounting so I could be a proper football fan.

SirHarryHotspur · Apr 25, 2024

Forget a striker every PL club needs a good lawyer

Sports law: Premier League to bring in new financial rules | SO Legal

Sports law: The Premier League has announced that it will introduce a new financial model before next season, in a move approved by the clubs.

www.solegal.co.uk

dovahkiin · Apr 26, 2024

GMI · Apr 26, 2024

dovahkiin said:

Hopefully after the season. Don’t want them distracted and let Arsenal sneak the title….

chas vs dave · Apr 26, 2024

dovahkiin said:

Nice, we now have a specific timeline.....

cwy21 · Apr 26, 2024

Near future compared to the heat death of the universe?

Albertbarich · Apr 26, 2024

They're getting off with it either way.

It's all corrupt to the very core

SirHarryHotspur · Apr 26, 2024

If the CAS ruling is anything to go by City should at least be found guilty of some of the failing to cooperate charges which the CAS panel found to be a "serious breach" for obstructing the UEFA investigation.
One of claims City made was that the leaked emails could not be used as evidence as they were obtained by illegal means , CAS overruled this and said that under Swiss Civil Law they could be used as it wasn't UEFA that had illegally obtained them, let's hope English Civil Law follows the same lines.

dovahkiin · Monday at 3:17 PM

SirHarryHotspur · Monday at 3:33 PM

According to a Mail article if the spending cap was set at a multiple of 5x then only Chelsea fail to meet the target, if it was 4.5x then just Chelsea & Man C would fail

Yiddo100 · Monday at 3:39 PM

SirHarryHotspur said:
According to a Mail article if the spending cap was set at a multiple of 5x then only Chelsea fail to meet the target, if it was 4.5x then just Chelsea & Man C would fail

surely no clubs would fail yet would they? Or is this if after 3 years they haven’t changed their financials?

Kingellesar · Monday at 4:03 PM

How is the tv money split? Who decides on that?

Surely this just means the lower clubs are going to get more of a % to allow the bigger clubs to spend more?

Westmorlandspur · Monday at 4:05 PM

Never said what exactly is covered. Is it transfer fees, wages, amortisation, or what .

Marty · Monday at 4:11 PM

dovahkiin said:

PFA response: “We’ll wait to see details of proposals but we would oppose any measure that would place a ‘hard’ cap on player wages.
There is an established process in place to ensure proposals like this, which would directly impact our members, have to be properly consulted on.”

But there's no proposed limit to the amount a single player can earn from what I can make out, only how much a club is allowed to spend. Which means that argument falls completely flat, a club can play any player as much as they like but it will have consequences for what else they can spend on, just like it should in any business.

So the PFA haven't come out of that in any good light IMO.

SirHarryHotspur · Monday at 4:34 PM

Yiddo100 said:
surely no clubs would fail yet would they? Or is this if after 3 years they haven’t changed their financials?

The article is based on todays estimated squad values not sure how it works if the transfer fees etc are not publicly published. Here's the article if you can be bothered with the ads.

Premier League clubs vote in 'salary cap'... so how does it work?

Premier League clubs have agreed in principle to a proposed 'salary cap' designed to stop the super-rich dominating everyone else.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Misfit · Monday at 4:37 PM

Marty said:
PFA response: “We’ll wait to see details of proposals but we would oppose any measure that would place a ‘hard’ cap on player wages.
There is an established process in place to ensure proposals like this, which would directly impact our members, have to be properly consulted on.”

But there's no proposed limit to the amount a single player can earn from what I can make out, only how much a club is allowed to spend. Which means that argument falls completely flat, a club can play any player as much as they like but it will have consequences for what else they can spend on, just like it should in any business.

So the PFA haven't come out of that in any good light IMO.

Good thing other leagues exist and they are free to move if they wish...

Zaphod · Monday at 4:40 PM

Is it just based solely on TV money or does a clubs gate money come into it? You would think that we would have been in favour of this?

SirHarryHotspur · Monday at 4:46 PM

Zaphod said:
Is it just based solely on TV money or does a clubs gate money come into it? You would think that we would have been in favour of this?

Pretty sure Levy with Arsenal , ( a properly run club regardless of local rivalry) & Liverpool, have been the driving force behind this , Man U seem to have flipped to the dark side. Letter from years ago to the then PL head Scudamore from Arsenal.

Premier League clubs adopt spending constraints

www.financialfairplay.co.uk

Nick-TopSpursMan · Tuesday at 8:26 AM

Zaphod said:
Is it just based solely on TV money or does a clubs gate money come into it? You would think that we would have been in favour of this?

The key thing a lot of people online (not here) are missing is that this is merely a backstop.

The main rule will still be the new Squad Cost Control where teams can only spend between 70-85% of their revenue on transfers, wages and agent fees.

So actually for most teams that 75-85% of revenue will be a lower spend than the multiple of 5 against tv money with anchoring.

Basically this anchoring currently only really affects City as their turnover could potentially be greater than the figure they’d have to spend with 85% of revenue.

Forums

What's new

Matches

Sportsbook

Members

Financial Fair Play (general thread)

Twisting a Melon with the Rev. Black Grape

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Damn you're ugly !

G.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Damn you're ugly !

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

This is the way

Well-Known Member

Audere est farce

Well-Known Member

President of The Niles Crane Fanclub

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads