What's new

FFP 2.0 impact on Spurs

coys200

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2017
8,436
17,403
My facts on this are a bit sketchy but I think the vote on this is today 24th. From what I understand net spend will be limited to £100m. Apparently it’s being driven by Madrid as they are worried about PSG city pulling away. This can only be good news for us. Obviously wages will still be big factor, but should certainly even things out. And with a relatively young squad we should be in a great position. Sure others on here are more informed about possible ramifications. Interesting how it might effect transfer prices and players running down contracts to go on frees.
 

Lilbaz

Just call me Baz
Apr 1, 2005
41,363
74,893
My facts on this are a bit sketchy but I think the vote on this is today 24th. From what I understand net spend will be limited to £100m. Apparently it’s being driven by Madrid as they are worried about PSG city pulling away. This can only be good news for us. Obviously wages will still be big factor, but should certainly even things out. And with a relatively young squad we should be in a great position. Sure others on here are more informed about possible ramifications. Interesting how it might effect transfer prices and players running down contracts to go on frees.

It was passed but no mention of the net spend rule.
It is a hundred page document so more details might come out tomorrow.
 

coys200

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2017
8,436
17,403
Apparently there’s a squad limit of 25 players over 21 yrs. which would royally screw Chelsea loan model.
 

coys200

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2017
8,436
17,403
It was passed but no mention of the net spend rule.
It is a hundred page document so more details might come out tomorrow.

Where did you see it was passed ? Everywhere I’ve read said vote was later today.
 

coys200

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2017
8,436
17,403
Ah the meeting was yesterday thought today was 24th. Think they would have mentioned it as would have been headline news.
 

Lilbaz

Just call me Baz
Apr 1, 2005
41,363
74,893
Ah the meeting was yesterday thought today was 24th. Think they would have mentioned it as would have been headline news.

As i said there was no mention of net spend etc... so nothing really headline worthy.
More might come out in the morning once the journalists have read through.
 

fridgemagnet

Well-Known Member
Jan 18, 2009
2,410
2,864
Apparently there’s a squad limit of 25 players over 21 yrs. which would royally screw Chelsea loan model.

Might help Chelsea as they'd have to play some of those players (or sell some) haven't they got some vast quantity of pretty good players there that get sent out on loan? (mostly signed to prevent other clubs signing and heaven forbid actually playing them no doubt)
 

shelfmonkey

Weird is different, different is interesting.
Mar 21, 2007
6,690
8,040
Might help Chelsea as they'd have to play some of those players (or sell some) haven't they got some vast quantity of pretty good players there that get sent out on loan? (mostly signed to prevent other clubs signing and heaven forbid actually playing them no doubt)

With a Poch type of manager, yes, with a Mourinho type, no.
 

Archibald&Crooks

Aegina Expat
Admin
Feb 1, 2005
55,533
204,720
As I understand it, you can't spend more than 100m more than you bring in through sales during any transfer window, so if you spend £300m on players you have to sell £200m worth. There's also something about limiting the number of players to 25, which is aimed at Chelsea who have a rep for buying players and loaning them out, but I have no idea how that works.

I guess as with all these things, we'll see.
 

aliyid

Well-Known Member
Dec 28, 2004
6,944
19,926
squad size part won’t impact Chelsea as there’s already a squad size limit in the prem (25 of which 8 must be ‘homegrown’).

FFP is also not worth the paper it’s written in as there are so many loop-holes around amortisation and costs being spread over many years
 

Lilbaz

Just call me Baz
Apr 1, 2005
41,363
74,893
squad size part won’t impact Chelsea as there’s already a squad size limit in the prem (25 of which 8 must be ‘homegrown’).

FFP is also not worth the paper it’s written in as there are so many loop-holes around amortisation and costs being spread over many years

The 25 will include players over 21 on loan.
Also a lot of it seems to be making accounts a lot clearer ,standard across europe and produced at the end of the season in order to close the loopholes and make it far quicker to investigate (it took up to 18 months previously).
One of the main loopholes was that you could only get 1/3 of your revenue counting towards ffp from a single sponsor. State run clubs had multiple related sponsors. Psg for example have about 10 sponsors all owned by the government. These will be effected.
 

absolute bobbins

Am Yisrael Chai
Feb 12, 2013
11,649
25,962
This is actually designed to limit the buying power of the Premier League in general. PL major revenue comes from Broadcast deals and if PL does manage to embrace streaming properly then we will be even further ahead of the rest of Europe in revenue terms
 

Lilbaz

Just call me Baz
Apr 1, 2005
41,363
74,893
This is actually designed to limit the buying power of the Premier League in general. PL major revenue comes from Broadcast deals and if PL does manage to embrace streaming properly then we will be even further ahead of the rest of Europe in revenue terms

Only two premier league clubs were over the net spend last season.City and utd.
 

DogsOfWar

Well-Known Member
Jan 12, 2005
2,292
3,603
As I understand it, you can't spend more than 100m more than you bring in through sales during any transfer window, so if you spend £300m on players you have to sell £200m worth. There's also something about limiting the number of players to 25, which is aimed at Chelsea who have a rep for buying players and loaning them out, but I have no idea how that works.

I guess as with all these things, we'll see.

Surely that would be related to turnover rather than sales?
So if a club earns £500 million and has £200 million spare for transfers it can only go £100 million over the £500 million before selling.

Otherwise that club may buy players for £100 million but then can't buy anyone else despite still having £100 million in spare cash.

This might explain the interest in young players as sell on value will become very important in the future.
 

Lilbaz

Just call me Baz
Apr 1, 2005
41,363
74,893
Surely that would be related to turnover rather than sales?
So if a club earns £500 million and has £200 million spare for transfers it can only go £100 million over the £500 million before selling.

Otherwise that club may buy players for £100 million but then can't buy anyone else despite still having £100 million in spare cash.

This might explain the interest in young players as sell on value will become very important in the future.

No the proposal is of a net spend on players of €100m. So if you spent €200m on new players you would have to sell €100m worth of players. It was proposed after psg went mental last summer.
 
Last edited:

quackers

Well-Known Member
Aug 20, 2013
447
1,750
No the proposal is of a net spend on players of €100m. So if you spent €200m on new players you would have to sell €100m worth of players. It was proposed after psg went mental last summer.
Seems stupid

Manure can easily net spend 150m + as they bring in that kind of money. Or would football prefer the glazers take out 50m in dividends each year. They bring in 600m a year and just about spend 300m on wages after debt etc they can still afford way more than 100m.
 

DogsOfWar

Well-Known Member
Jan 12, 2005
2,292
3,603
Seems stupid

Manure can easily net spend 150m + as they bring in that kind of money. Or would football prefer the glazers take out 50m in dividends each year. They bring in 600m a year and just about spend 300m on wages after debt etc they can still afford way more than 100m.

It's perfect timing for us though as it will level the playing field just as we kick on financially in the next couple of seasons.
It will remove the advantage that the really big earners, Utd, Real, and Barca have over us.
 

Tucker

Shitehawk
Jul 15, 2013
31,128
146,002
The effect on us will wholly depend on if it’s actually enforced. Man City, PSG, Chelsea, they should have all fallen foul of FFP in its current form. But they found ways to game it.
 
Top