Topic: Financial Fair Play - developments in here

[lobsterboy]

What a prick, doesn't say that in this article.

Does say this though;

And in another shock development, a vote to reverse the February ruling on related-party transactions - deals within multi-club networks or with sponsors who have the same owners as a club - could also be on the cards.

In February, an amendment to these rules was approved by the narrowest of margins. With seven votes needed to block a proposal, there were 12 in favour, two abstentions and six against. But some feel that the change, and the knock-on impact it has on ownership of other clubs overseas, is harmful with one, thought to be Manchester City, considering legal action.

Cheaty should be fucked off from this league, they just don't deserve to be in it, c*nts.

That won't happen.
Too many vested interests and too much money greasing palms.
The only way is for the non state despot run clubs to leave the league and start a new one with cast iron rules on membership and spending.
Abu Dhabi, Chelsea, Saudi and Sheffield Utd can play each other every week.

[west_london_red]

Would be the end of football for me. Klopp going and then just seeing City and Newcastle spending £500m a year and paying a £5m fine to do so would probably just about kill any enjoyment left.

If City don’t get suitable punishment then I’m done with it, if I wanted to watch a fixed ‘sport’ I’d watch wrestling.

[WillG.LFC]

Just set an actual transfer limit. It's the only value that can be controlled. Set it to 150 million or something as a maximum for transfers for all teams. That's enough that allows all teams to spend similar. Salary caps won't work

[FlashGordon]

Yeah and players are going to turn down the 1 million a week offered to them by the petro clubs to join the real clubs?

[LovelyCushionedHeader]

Just set an actual transfer limit. It's the only value that can be controlled. Set it to 150 million or something as a maximum for transfers for all teams. That's enough that allows all teams to spend similar. Salary caps won't work

Would really screw smaller clubs over because that will just lead to more players running their contracts out.

[BigCDump]

If City don’t get suitable punishment then I’m done with it, if I wanted to watch a fixed ‘sport’ I’d watch wrestling.

I'm already on the weaning off phase. Cancelled all my subscriptions football related two years ago. Stopped watching MotD except for the 5 minutes we're on. Even then only occasionally. Certainly do not watch other teams' games or highlights any longer. Arsenal v City was the first one in a long time.

I predict I'll be off footie in 18-24 months entirely. Will coincide with Liverpool failing to win stuff obviously. I did the same with international cricket after match fixing and BCCI killed the sport.

[jacobs chains]

It would take a few years of holding our breaths and praying for the best but if us, United, Arsenal, Spurs resigned from the Prem and asked to join the EFL just before the next TV rights deal, then almost all of England's football problems could be solved.

[WillG.LFC]

Yeah and players are going to turn down the 1 million a week offered to them by the petro clubs to join the real clubs?

You could say that now, the only way to get some sort of control is to limit the amount you can spend on purchases. Not net spend, actual purchases. If the most you can buy is 150 to 200 million each year it stops the loopholes of loaning player farming, selling players for inflated prices to negate ffp. You could even limit number of free signings each year in addition

[WillG.LFC]

Would really screw smaller clubs over because that will just lead to more players running their contracts out.

Doesn't really screw them over as it means the players stay with them for longer. Gives the league more chance to close the gap without crazy spending

[LovelyCushionedHeader]

Doesn't really screw them over as it means the players stay with them for longer. Gives the league more chance to close the gap without crazy spending

And then how do they adequately replace them? Without spending above their means?

[JRed]

If there is to be a spending limit then I think it would have to be on a sliding scale. The better you finish in the league the less you can spend the next year. Might even things out a little.

[WillG.LFC]

And then how do they adequately replace them? Without spending above their means?

They wouldn't have to spend above their means. It shouldn't affect the lower half of the league, it simply lowers the amounts the top of the league can spend.

[WillG.LFC]

I doubt the lower half of the league are spending 150 mill a year so the cap wouldn't affect them. Saying to city or Chelsea you can only spend 150 mill means a player like caicedo nearly uses up the entire budget

[WillG.LFC]

Quick Google, 5 teams spent over 150 mill this year. Chelsea, City, Arsenal, spurs and united. So it would have reduced the amount of players they brought in. Rest of the league spending was below that, many clubs by far. Would give the league more parity

[koptommy93]

This from Ziegler in the Times is way less sensationalist than what the Mail put out:

The Premier League is set to keep points-deduction penalties for breaches of the financial rules but is considering having a tariff that would impose only fines on clubs for lesser offences.

The new system, which would run alongside a new “squad cost rule” that limits spending, would come into force for the 2025-26 season if approved at the Premier League clubs’ summer meeting in June.

The league’s Profitability and Sustainability Rules (PSR) have been criticised by Everton and Nottingham Forest after both clubs were deducted points for going over the fiscal limit, which allows for £105 million in losses over a three-year period.
There have also been questions as to why Forest were given only a four-point deduction despite having a larger breach than Everton, who had an initial ten-point deduction reduced to six on appeal.

Unlike the Football League, the Premier League clubs had decided not to have a fixed tariff of sanctions but to leave that decision to an independent commission — which is what happened in the cases of Everton and Forest.
The Premier League is looking at a proposal for a salary-cap model, called “anchoring”, which would make the amount any team can spend on wages linked to the amount of TV money paid to the lowest-placed club. For example, if the bottom club received £100 million, the maximum any club could spend on wages and transfers would be a multiple of that — possibly 4.5 times as much.

The league is also likely to mirror Uefa’s “squad cost rule”, under which clubs are allowed to spend only a fixed percentage of revenue on wages and transfers. Uefa is working towards a 70 per cent limit but it would be 85 per cent in the Premier League.
The votes on the new rules may result in another split between clubs who want tighter spending regulations and those who favour a free market.

[Peabee]

Ironically, it's not really a free market when states are involved. They'd have to ban state ownership among all clubs.

[MonsLibpool]

This from Ziegler in the Times is way less sensationalist than what the Mail put out:

The Premier League is set to keep points-deduction penalties for breaches of the financial rules but is considering having a tariff that would impose only fines on clubs for lesser offences.

The new system, which would run alongside a new “squad cost rule” that limits spending, would come into force for the 2025-26 season if approved at the Premier League clubs’ summer meeting in June.

The league’s Profitability and Sustainability Rules (PSR) have been criticised by Everton and Nottingham Forest after both clubs were deducted points for going over the fiscal limit, which allows for £105 million in losses over a three-year period.
There have also been questions as to why Forest were given only a four-point deduction despite having a larger breach than Everton, who had an initial ten-point deduction reduced to six on appeal.

Unlike the Football League, the Premier League clubs had decided not to have a fixed tariff of sanctions but to leave that decision to an independent commission — which is what happened in the cases of Everton and Forest.
The Premier League is looking at a proposal for a salary-cap model, called “anchoring”, which would make the amount any team can spend on wages linked to the amount of TV money paid to the lowest-placed club. For example, if the bottom club received £100 million, the maximum any club could spend on wages and transfers would be a multiple of that — possibly 4.5 times as much.

The league is also likely to mirror Uefa’s “squad cost rule”, under which clubs are allowed to spend only a fixed percentage of revenue on wages and transfers. Uefa is working towards a 70 per cent limit but it would be 85 per cent in the Premier League.
The votes on the new rules may result in another split between clubs who want tighter spending regulations and those who favour a free market.

It's fine IMO becase the squad cost rule is forward-looking and sometimes it's hard to know whether or not a club can breach it or not.

A few poor results and a club can slide down the table and breach the threshold. For those kind of breaches, a financial punishment that is considered as part of the 85% limit is fine. Basically, clubs have to be more "on it" when it comes to their finances.

It's funny that managers are more likely to hang around like a bad smell because clubs can't afford to sack them due to the tight limits. Look at Tuchel.

[decosabute]

Just set an actual transfer limit. It's the only value that can be controlled. Set it to 150 million or something as a maximum for transfers for all teams. That's enough that allows all teams to spend similar. Salary caps won't work

Teams will find a way to claim they paid bullshit fees the way they do with salaries. It wouldn't be policed closely enough to stop that happening.

[thejbs]

Just set an actual transfer limit. It's the only value that can be controlled. Set it to 150 million or something as a maximum for transfers for all teams. That's enough that allows all teams to spend similar. Salary caps won't work

It’s a non-starter unless all leagues agree to it. And then you get the snide under the table transfers, or 8 year contracts. There are always loopholes.

[rafathegaffa83]

This article misses the blatant elephant in the room. Why are we here? In part because Everton managed to kick the can down the road rather than being rightfully punished last season.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2024/apr/09/premier-league-psr-profitability-sustainability-rules

[lionel_messias]

This article misses the blatant elephant in the room. Why are we here? In part because Everton managed to kick the can down the road rather than being rightfully punished last season.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2024/apr/09/premier-league-psr-profitability-sustainability-rules

I also bore myself but worth repeating it: there is NO way Everton, Forest and a host of other clubs will view current point deductions and stomach anything less than Biblical levels of justice against Manchester City next year. It just will not play. The block of Liverpool, Arsenal, Man United and Spurs would not accept it either.

For City, I think it probably lands on one level relegation, and large transfer ban. Epic reputational damage and Pep leaves them too.

[Dim Glas]

Not sure if this is for this thread, but it defo involves finances.

It’ll probably make your blood boil though. What an absolute shitshow this league is 

The bill for new Independent Regulator features a key clause that would facilitate state ownership, and undermine its aims and very independence regulator obliged to consult with government on owners "in regard to the foreign and trade policy objectives”
https://x.com/MiguelDelaney/status/1777646076192834029

https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/regulator-premier-league-saudi-arabia-qatar-uae-b2525624.html

New football regulator could help foreign state ownership of Premier League clubs
Activist groups are concerned that a clause in the government bill for an independent regulator may facilitate foreign countries buying English football clubs

The independent football regulator may have the effect of facilitating state ownership of clubs, due to a clause in the bill that activist groups believe contradicts the core aim of ensuring “the long-term sustainability and resilience of English football”.

It could even see the planned body obliged to consult with the UK government in situations where state entities seek to buy clubs, potentially undermining the very independence of the regulator. The Independent has been told the prospect has raised further concerns about the regulator within some Premier League clubs as well as the wider football pyramid.

Clause 37 of the Football Governance Bill states that the regulator “must also have regard to the foreign and trade policy objectives” of the UK government in determining whether a buyer is suitable to own an English football club. This has led to FairSquare, ALQST for Human Rights and fan groups to write a letter to the secretary of state for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Lucy Frazer and foreign secretary David Cameron, expressing concern about the potential consequences, and how it could even undermine the independence of the regulator regarding the core issues it was set up to address. Some Premier League clubs had already lobbied for state ownership to be banned in earlier consultations.

State-linked ownership is highlighted by the letter as “arguably the greatest threat to the sustainability, integrity and vitality of football in England and beyond”. This is primarily due to how the inferred political aims of such ownerships and state representation run counter to clubs’ role as community representatives, while also historically causing the financial inflation that the regulator has been established to tackle.

The letter points to the apparent contradiction of how the white paper identifies that “English football is currently endangered by the high and growing risk of financial failure among clubs” but “made no reference to the capacity of state-owned clubs to outspend other clubs”, posing “a specific threat to the integrity of English football, by creating unsustainable inflationary pressures”.

Fair Square wrote to DCMS in March 2023 in response to the publication of the government white paper on football governance, specifically raising this concern. The DCMS responded that “the regulator will not have the remit to assess… the suitability of state ownership”, but concerns have been raised about how the bill goes further than this. The independent football regulator will instead be obliged to consult the UK government in instances where state-owned or controlled entities seek to buy ownership of clubs. “This raises the spectre of British foreign policy objectives and priorities overriding the IFR’s mandated role to only allow individuals with the requisite ‘honesty and integrity’ to maintain or assume control of English clubs.

The letter points to how Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson’s government “went to substantial lengths to ensure that a consortium controlled by the government of Saudi Arabia were able to assume control of Newcastle United”, and how the current UK government has refused to release information on Foreign Office correspondence related to the Premier League charges against Manchester City for alleged breaches of financial rules, under the justification it would “prejudice the interests of the UK abroad”.

The issue may have the effect of putting the regulator further at odds with Premier League clubs, since there is a growing rump who want football authorities to tackle the issue of state ownership.

The FairSquare letter also highlights how the government recently introduced legislation to ban full foreign state ownership of media organisations, in response to the proposed takeover of the Daily Telegraph by a consortium led by the UAE government. “In view of the social, political, economic and cultural importance of football clubs, we urge you to afford them similar protections from foreign state investment”, the letter reads.

The Department for Culture, Media and Sport have been contacted for comment.

[Black Bull Nova]

Like everything else this government has done, especially since Boris got in, it lacks any rationale, just expediency masked as principle.
If FFP serves a purpose it is to protect clubs (and most especially their loyal suckers, the fans who have little option to change product given their most probably childhood lifetime committment)
It should be there to ensure clubs remain viable, have a realistic income stream and are not dependent on owners who, at a whim or a war, can disappear.
Clubs need to be able to support themselves based on their income. If they are overspending this is not the case and they need to be protected from themselves. Everton is a perfect example of a club that thought they could overspend and are now suffering as a consequence. If 6 points had been at stake they most likely would not have wasted money on some of the shite they bought and would probably be viable now.
If the points penalty goes or is downgraded the system will fall apart, Newcastle, City, Arsenal, Spurs, United and us will be chasing 4 CL spots and only 2 of those have bottomless pits of money, others will join them. Something has to give.
It's all a real mess and the PL are incompetent and seemingly corrupt.

[harleydanger]

It's classic neo-con shit, sell off national assets, take the kickbacks, retire to another country.

[Mister Flip Flop]

Not sure if this is for this thread, but it defo involves finances.

It’ll probably make your blood boil though. What an absolute shitshow this league is 

The bill for new Independent Regulator features a key clause that would facilitate state ownership, and undermine its aims and very independence regulator obliged to consult with government on owners "in regard to the foreign and trade policy objectives”
https://x.com/MiguelDelaney/status/1777646076192834029

https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/regulator-premier-league-saudi-arabia-qatar-uae-b2525624.html

New football regulator could help foreign state ownership of Premier League clubs
Activist groups are concerned that a clause in the government bill for an independent regulator may facilitate foreign countries buying English football clubs

The independent football regulator may have the effect of facilitating state ownership of clubs, due to a clause in the bill that activist groups believe contradicts the core aim of ensuring “the long-term sustainability and resilience of English football”.

It could even see the planned body obliged to consult with the UK government in situations where state entities seek to buy clubs, potentially undermining the very independence of the regulator. The Independent has been told the prospect has raised further concerns about the regulator within some Premier League clubs as well as the wider football pyramid.

Clause 37 of the Football Governance Bill states that the regulator “must also have regard to the foreign and trade policy objectives” of the UK government in determining whether a buyer is suitable to own an English football club. This has led to FairSquare, ALQST for Human Rights and fan groups to write a letter to the secretary of state for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Lucy Frazer and foreign secretary David Cameron, expressing concern about the potential consequences, and how it could even undermine the independence of the regulator regarding the core issues it was set up to address. Some Premier League clubs had already lobbied for state ownership to be banned in earlier consultations.

State-linked ownership is highlighted by the letter as “arguably the greatest threat to the sustainability, integrity and vitality of football in England and beyond”. This is primarily due to how the inferred political aims of such ownerships and state representation run counter to clubs’ role as community representatives, while also historically causing the financial inflation that the regulator has been established to tackle.

The letter points to the apparent contradiction of how the white paper identifies that “English football is currently endangered by the high and growing risk of financial failure among clubs” but “made no reference to the capacity of state-owned clubs to outspend other clubs”, posing “a specific threat to the integrity of English football, by creating unsustainable inflationary pressures”.

Fair Square wrote to DCMS in March 2023 in response to the publication of the government white paper on football governance, specifically raising this concern. The DCMS responded that “the regulator will not have the remit to assess… the suitability of state ownership”, but concerns have been raised about how the bill goes further than this. The independent football regulator will instead be obliged to consult the UK government in instances where state-owned or controlled entities seek to buy ownership of clubs. “This raises the spectre of British foreign policy objectives and priorities overriding the IFR’s mandated role to only allow individuals with the requisite ‘honesty and integrity’ to maintain or assume control of English clubs.

The letter points to how Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson’s government “went to substantial lengths to ensure that a consortium controlled by the government of Saudi Arabia were able to assume control of Newcastle United”, and how the current UK government has refused to release information on Foreign Office correspondence related to the Premier League charges against Manchester City for alleged breaches of financial rules, under the justification it would “prejudice the interests of the UK abroad”.

The issue may have the effect of putting the regulator further at odds with Premier League clubs, since there is a growing rump who want football authorities to tackle the issue of state ownership.

The FairSquare letter also highlights how the government recently introduced legislation to ban full foreign state ownership of media organisations, in response to the proposed takeover of the Daily Telegraph by a consortium led by the UAE government. “In view of the social, political, economic and cultural importance of football clubs, we urge you to afford them similar protections from foreign state investment”, the letter reads.

The Department for Culture, Media and Sport have been contacted for comment.

Two words, Super League

It's not perfect but if it can be got off the ground without the sportwashing clubs it's a far batter option than what we presently have.

[vblfc]

Two words, Super League

It's not perfect but if it can be got off the ground without the sportwashing clubs it's a far batter option than what we presently have.

I get your frustration but (in my opinion) there’s little chance anyone will successfully table the super league again and it was an alternative to CL not Prem. The Super League wasn’t trying to secure clubs futures etc. it was a money grab. (Different to sportswash but including those state owned clubs). Nothing in it to solve Financial Fair Play or sportswashing. The Premier League/ English Football tier system needs to clean it’s own act up, maybe restructure is needed. If not, it will  become more and more a political, state and Sky/BT influenced money/snake pit.

[jillcwhomever]

Two words, Super League

It's not perfect but if it can be got off the ground without the sportwashing clubs it's a far batter option than what we presently have.

My days watching football is over, if this raises its ugly head again.

[Mister Flip Flop]

My days watching football is over, if this raises its ugly head again.

What about if 115 charges don't get punished to the level they should? Will you still be invested in the sport and watch.

[jillcwhomever]

What about if 115 charges don't get punished to the level they should? Will you still be invested in the sport and watch.

I will stop watching when I have seen enough. But I don't understand how the Super League gets so much good press from fans, as it won't improve the overall spectacle and will cause different issues.

[JRed]

My days watching football is over, if this raises its ugly head again.

Yeah, it’s much better watching the oil states hoover up every single trophy with the Tories getting involved if anyone dares try and top their sportswashing.

[Redley]

Dyou not think the Sportswashers will be invited into a Super League....?

[LovelyCushionedHeader]

Dyou not think the Sportswashers will be invited into a Super League....?

They have to be, otherwise they have the money to defeat it, like with LIV golf. The key is to ensure stringent rules are set out upon inception that ensures they do not have an unfair advantage, or face severe punishment.

[vblfc]

They have to be, otherwise they have the money to defeat it, like with LIV golf. The key is to ensure stringent rules are set out upon inception that ensures they do not have an unfair advantage, or face severe punishment.

Madrid have been driving the super League and they will want the money to follow them.  The ESL doesn’t replace the Premier League. So the points are moot anyway.

[In the Name of Klopp]

This is in the right direction. Bit surprised Newcastle did support it.

Premier League clubs vote to introduce spending cap

• Premier League clubs have voted to introduce a cap on how much a team can spend on wages, transfers & agent fees
• Man Utd, Man City & Aston Villa voted against the measures
• Chelsea abstained from the vote

Premier League clubs have voted in favour of introducing a spending cap which will limit costs of transfers, wages and agent fees.

The cap will be linked to the lowest amount of money earned in television rights by one club in the division.

16 clubs voted in favour of introducing the measures, Sky News state. Manchester City, Manchester United and Aston Villa voted against the cap, while Chelsea abstained from the vote.

The idea of a spending cap was raised amid fears that the bigger clubs in the division have developed an unfair advantage and will be designed to ensure those earning huge sums from competing in the Champions League remain on a level playing field to the rest of the teams in the league.

The specific details of the cap have not yet been finalised but will be discussed at a meeting in June.

Importantly, it is understood that the cap will not impact any current levels of spending and teams will not be required to reduce their current wages.

Last season, City boasted a league-high wage budget of £423m, while their agent fees of £51.5m was also the highest in the division.

More to follow...

[JRed]

This is in the right direction. Bit surprised Newcastle did support it.

It’s a start I suppose. Although if you’re owned by despotic , murderous oil states, you shouldn’t be able to spend anything.

[Egyptian36]

This is in the right direction. Bit surprised Newcastle did support it.

Nah it usless like always.

Countries officials not allowed to own or run a football club that's the rule needed but no balls

[LovelyCushionedHeader]

Won't change anything. City and the like will just find new ways to circumvent the rules with off the book payments etc.

[jepovic]

This is in the right direction. Bit surprised Newcastle did support it.

It's fantastic news for them and city. Their owners, not the clubs, will simply give their star players some crazy sponsor deal, like 50M a year to promote makeup or whatever.  We cant do that so easily. I mean does anybody seriously believe that Haaland only gets paid by ManC?

[Black Bull Nova]

This is in the right direction. Bit surprised Newcastle did support it.

It favours Newcastle more than anyone, until they reach the top of the cap which is some time away

[Brian Blessed]

According to some rando I read, exactly one club would be affected by this based upon current financialsC and it’s the one you’d expect. And as noted, they’ll just circumvent it anyway.