Wriggly
Banned
Re: O/T Financial Fair Play - Now Voted In By The Premier League
Oh. My. fudging. GHod lol
Oh. My. fudging. GHod lol
-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
Financial Fair Play
- Thread starter NewmarketYid
- Start date
Danishfurniturelover
the prettiest spice girl
Re: O/T Financial Fair Play - Now Voted In By The Premier League
Not often i agree with you but yeah fudging hell
I really do hate city and chelsea fans, i would walk away if it ever happened to us. Totally respect the man u ones that went off and started fc united.
Not often i agree with you but yeah fudging hell
I really do hate city and chelsea fans, i would walk away if it ever happened to us. Totally respect the man u ones that went off and started fc united.
Baleforce
Arthur Rowe
Re: O/T Financial Fair Play - Now Voted In By The Premier League
whilst that is lunacy from city fans I do feel that this could end up hitting smaller clubs who miss the targets by a little bit far more than the mega rich clubs who take the tinkle and will be able to finance their way through the loopholes
if it comes down to a football authority or a commercial interest I know who my money is on to be smarter
whilst that is lunacy from city fans I do feel that this could end up hitting smaller clubs who miss the targets by a little bit far more than the mega rich clubs who take the tinkle and will be able to finance their way through the loopholes
if it comes down to a football authority or a commercial interest I know who my money is on to be smarter
Modric THFC
Jimmy McCormick
Re: O/T Financial Fair Play - Now Voted In By The Premier League
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2013/feb/07/premier-league-self-interest-fair-play
New Premier League rules derived from self-interest, not fair play
David Conn
Richard Scudamore, the chief executive of the Premier League, said the regulations his clubs have introduced should not be likened to Uefa's financial fair play, and indeed the most striking first impression was how much more slack the 20 clubs have cut for themselves. Uefa's financial fair play rules restrict clubs in European competitions to making total losses of €45m in 2012‑14, while the Premier League's limit, agreed after nine months of discussion, is £105m over three years. That is still a great deal of money to lose between 2013 and 2016, given the £5.5bn bonanza expected to arrive in TV income alone.
The rules, the £105m loss and the measures restricting players' wages increases, are clearly a compromise. A deal has been done to reach a middle ground between clubs such as Manchester United, Arsenal, Liverpool and Tottenham Hotspur who wanted a strict implementation of Uefa's €45m limit, and other clubs, including Emirates Marketing Project, who wanted no restrictions at all.
Scudamore argued that these rules will protect the Premier League clubs financially in advance of this deluge of cash. The £105m is only allowed to be lost if an owner has guaranteed it and paid the money in. Losses not guaranteed by owners will be limited to the much more modest £15m over three years. That, the Premier League said, will prevent "another Portsmouth", the notoriously insolvent club that, in administration again, lurched into another tortured twist, with a new bid made to challenge that of the supporters trust, even as the current top 20 clubs were meeting.
The compromise is also broader, between a vision of football that has clubs living within their means, and one that wants owners buying them and pouring in cash to buy success. The compromise means the English game is still open to that model, but such an owner is limited to £105m over three years, plus investment in youth training and infrastructure. Scudamore specifically acknowledged that the rules will not allow turbo-fuelling like that of Emirates Marketing Project, where Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed al-Nahyan has injected around £1bn since 2008 to elevate City from ninth in the Premier League to champions.
There will be sanctions for breaching the rule, and Scudamore said they will push for it to be severe, a points deduction if the £105m is seriously overspent. The aim is to allow owners to put serious money into clubs, but not quite so serious as Roman Abramovich and Sheikh Mansour have unleashed into their football ventures.
The wage limit is a little odd, and illustrates the greatest frustration with the conduct of these reforms. Most clubs' main aim is to ensure they do not blow the forthcoming vast fortune on ever-inflating players' wages. They have agreed to limit wage bill increases to £4m in 2013, then £8m, then £12m, out of the Premier League's TV income. Clubs, though, can increase wages as much as they like from owners' money up to the £105m overall, or from commercial revenue – or ticket income.
The Premier League says clubs will not be seeking ways to evade the rules because they themselves have introduced them. But this rule builds in an incentive to raise ticket prices – at a time when there is an almighty outcry about the high cost of supporting football.
There lies the missed opportunity. These rules do something to restrain overspending, although it is notable they are aimed at a Emirates Marketing Project project, which at least sees money going in, rather than the Glazers' milking of Manchester United for £550m to pay the interest and costs of their own takeover. This has been pushed for by the American owners of United, Arsenal and Liverpool, who bought English clubs as investments, and have no intention of spending money on them.
They, and the other Premier League clubs, three of whom will be relegated at the end of the season, have been allowed to introduce these rules with no reference to the wider game and no involvement of the governing body, the Football Association. They are designed to guard against spending the prospective windfall on player wages, but not tied to any broader discussion, perhaps a commitment to reduce ticket prices, or increase investment in the grass roots. There has been no great consideration of wider issues affecting football, and the clubs have voted from their own self-interest or peculiarities of opinion.
Scudamore said they have been on "a journey" from "a fairly low threshold of financial regulation" to a set of rules requiring solvent, non-criminal owners and a reasonably sustainable way to run clubs. Many believe that journey should go a lot further, not just dampen player wages, and the millions owners can spend on the clubs they have bought.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2013/feb/07/premier-league-self-interest-fair-play
New Premier League rules derived from self-interest, not fair play
David Conn
Richard Scudamore, the chief executive of the Premier League, said the regulations his clubs have introduced should not be likened to Uefa's financial fair play, and indeed the most striking first impression was how much more slack the 20 clubs have cut for themselves. Uefa's financial fair play rules restrict clubs in European competitions to making total losses of €45m in 2012‑14, while the Premier League's limit, agreed after nine months of discussion, is £105m over three years. That is still a great deal of money to lose between 2013 and 2016, given the £5.5bn bonanza expected to arrive in TV income alone.
The rules, the £105m loss and the measures restricting players' wages increases, are clearly a compromise. A deal has been done to reach a middle ground between clubs such as Manchester United, Arsenal, Liverpool and Tottenham Hotspur who wanted a strict implementation of Uefa's €45m limit, and other clubs, including Emirates Marketing Project, who wanted no restrictions at all.
Scudamore argued that these rules will protect the Premier League clubs financially in advance of this deluge of cash. The £105m is only allowed to be lost if an owner has guaranteed it and paid the money in. Losses not guaranteed by owners will be limited to the much more modest £15m over three years. That, the Premier League said, will prevent "another Portsmouth", the notoriously insolvent club that, in administration again, lurched into another tortured twist, with a new bid made to challenge that of the supporters trust, even as the current top 20 clubs were meeting.
The compromise is also broader, between a vision of football that has clubs living within their means, and one that wants owners buying them and pouring in cash to buy success. The compromise means the English game is still open to that model, but such an owner is limited to £105m over three years, plus investment in youth training and infrastructure. Scudamore specifically acknowledged that the rules will not allow turbo-fuelling like that of Emirates Marketing Project, where Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed al-Nahyan has injected around £1bn since 2008 to elevate City from ninth in the Premier League to champions.
There will be sanctions for breaching the rule, and Scudamore said they will push for it to be severe, a points deduction if the £105m is seriously overspent. The aim is to allow owners to put serious money into clubs, but not quite so serious as Roman Abramovich and Sheikh Mansour have unleashed into their football ventures.
The wage limit is a little odd, and illustrates the greatest frustration with the conduct of these reforms. Most clubs' main aim is to ensure they do not blow the forthcoming vast fortune on ever-inflating players' wages. They have agreed to limit wage bill increases to £4m in 2013, then £8m, then £12m, out of the Premier League's TV income. Clubs, though, can increase wages as much as they like from owners' money up to the £105m overall, or from commercial revenue – or ticket income.
The Premier League says clubs will not be seeking ways to evade the rules because they themselves have introduced them. But this rule builds in an incentive to raise ticket prices – at a time when there is an almighty outcry about the high cost of supporting football.
There lies the missed opportunity. These rules do something to restrain overspending, although it is notable they are aimed at a Emirates Marketing Project project, which at least sees money going in, rather than the Glazers' milking of Manchester United for £550m to pay the interest and costs of their own takeover. This has been pushed for by the American owners of United, Arsenal and Liverpool, who bought English clubs as investments, and have no intention of spending money on them.
They, and the other Premier League clubs, three of whom will be relegated at the end of the season, have been allowed to introduce these rules with no reference to the wider game and no involvement of the governing body, the Football Association. They are designed to guard against spending the prospective windfall on player wages, but not tied to any broader discussion, perhaps a commitment to reduce ticket prices, or increase investment in the grass roots. There has been no great consideration of wider issues affecting football, and the clubs have voted from their own self-interest or peculiarities of opinion.
Scudamore said they have been on "a journey" from "a fairly low threshold of financial regulation" to a set of rules requiring solvent, non-criminal owners and a reasonably sustainable way to run clubs. Many believe that journey should go a lot further, not just dampen player wages, and the millions owners can spend on the clubs they have bought.
DubaiSpur
Ian Walker
Re: O/T Financial Fair Play - Now Voted In By The Premier League
I play football on Sunday mornings. Indoor, given the wintery conditions at the moment, but you can't have everything. And the sportsmanship, good humour and better conversations are what keeps football alive for me.
By my own logic, football supporters are irrational, emotional and love their club to the extent of indulging gleefully in tribalism that would be unheard of outside that little bubble. And there is little that is rational in a nine-year old boy, I'm sure you'll agree. So when I say that I fell in love with Tottenham because it was the first football jersey I ever received, when I was nine years old, I am completely secure in my own reasoning. There was nothing rational or logical about choosing Spurs.
Once I became a Spurs fan, I couldn't break that bond, no matter how hard I tried. And believe me, I did try. When Campbell callously moved over the thin red line, I tried. When lasagna-gate rolled around, agonizing my adolescent heart, I tried. When Drogba scored that penalty last year....I came close. But I couldn't stay away forever, and I always came back for more. Be it agony, or glimpses of glory.
That bond is what a free market lacks. Brand loyalty is not going to make you keep buying the newest Apple computer, despite it breaking down on you several times. No one is that understanding, because in the free market, you give a company one chance, maybe two, before you move on to a competitor who can deliver what your current provider lacks. Ruthless competition drives the free market, drives capitalism. The bond a fan has with his football club, that bond survives all kinds of abuse, disappointment and failure. The bond a man or woman has with their computer does not last through those things.
36,000 do not show up at KPMG's offices to cheer on their accountants every week.
Now, I will ask you again; if you truly believe football is capitalistic, if you truly believe there is nothing special about football that necessitates providing an even footing to ALL clubs, not just the rich ones, and if you truly believe that City and Chelsea are right to do what they do because football is driven purely by logic, rationality and profit.....then why are you still here, and not on RedCafe? Or Hala Madrid, I don't judge between the two. But they're both infinitely more succesful and popular than we are, so why aren't you following them?
Before another snarky reply that bears little to no relevance to the question comes my way, I'll answer it for you. You're here because you have a connection with this club that outweighs considerations of success or failure. You're here because you care about this club. You're here despite being able to leave freely and go elsewhere.
You are here because you are a supporter of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club.
Or Wrexham. Or Altrincham. Or Aberdeen. Or Falkirk. Or Bristol Rovers. The list goes on, populated by stoic, loyal people who travel miles, brave freezing winds and thundering rain, sweltering heat and icy cold, hostile atmospheres and eternal disappointment, who spend thousands of pounds yearly travelling around the isles supporting the club they love, shouting themselves hoarse for no other reason than to giddy the lads up and get the three points for a side they earnestly believe is 'theirs'.
And that is a bond true capitalism will never, ever have. And that, alone, is a reason to regulate this sport more than any free market economy.
I play football on Sunday mornings. Indoor, given the wintery conditions at the moment, but you can't have everything. And the sportsmanship, good humour and better conversations are what keeps football alive for me.
By my own logic, football supporters are irrational, emotional and love their club to the extent of indulging gleefully in tribalism that would be unheard of outside that little bubble. And there is little that is rational in a nine-year old boy, I'm sure you'll agree. So when I say that I fell in love with Tottenham because it was the first football jersey I ever received, when I was nine years old, I am completely secure in my own reasoning. There was nothing rational or logical about choosing Spurs.
Once I became a Spurs fan, I couldn't break that bond, no matter how hard I tried. And believe me, I did try. When Campbell callously moved over the thin red line, I tried. When lasagna-gate rolled around, agonizing my adolescent heart, I tried. When Drogba scored that penalty last year....I came close. But I couldn't stay away forever, and I always came back for more. Be it agony, or glimpses of glory.
That bond is what a free market lacks. Brand loyalty is not going to make you keep buying the newest Apple computer, despite it breaking down on you several times. No one is that understanding, because in the free market, you give a company one chance, maybe two, before you move on to a competitor who can deliver what your current provider lacks. Ruthless competition drives the free market, drives capitalism. The bond a fan has with his football club, that bond survives all kinds of abuse, disappointment and failure. The bond a man or woman has with their computer does not last through those things.
36,000 do not show up at KPMG's offices to cheer on their accountants every week.
Now, I will ask you again; if you truly believe football is capitalistic, if you truly believe there is nothing special about football that necessitates providing an even footing to ALL clubs, not just the rich ones, and if you truly believe that City and Chelsea are right to do what they do because football is driven purely by logic, rationality and profit.....then why are you still here, and not on RedCafe? Or Hala Madrid, I don't judge between the two. But they're both infinitely more succesful and popular than we are, so why aren't you following them?
Before another snarky reply that bears little to no relevance to the question comes my way, I'll answer it for you. You're here because you have a connection with this club that outweighs considerations of success or failure. You're here because you care about this club. You're here despite being able to leave freely and go elsewhere.
You are here because you are a supporter of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club.
Or Wrexham. Or Altrincham. Or Aberdeen. Or Falkirk. Or Bristol Rovers. The list goes on, populated by stoic, loyal people who travel miles, brave freezing winds and thundering rain, sweltering heat and icy cold, hostile atmospheres and eternal disappointment, who spend thousands of pounds yearly travelling around the isles supporting the club they love, shouting themselves hoarse for no other reason than to giddy the lads up and get the three points for a side they earnestly believe is 'theirs'.
And that is a bond true capitalism will never, ever have. And that, alone, is a reason to regulate this sport more than any free market economy.
Spur of the moment
Frederic Kanoute
thfcsteff
George Hunt
Re: O/T Financial Fair Play - Now Voted In By The Premier League
A fantastic post. I am going to move to get this preserved/stickied. In a fudging nutshell...
A fantastic post. I am going to move to get this preserved/stickied. In a fudging nutshell...
Rorschach
Sonny Walters
Re: O/T Financial Fair Play - Now Voted In By The Premier League
.
Summary from SSN
The Premier League have voted in new financial regulations - we try and answer any questions.
Q: Will the Premier League now have a salary cap?
A: Not in the strict sense of the word. Clubs whose total wage bill is more than £52million will only be allowed to increase their wages by £4million per season for the next three years.
Q: So the likes of Manchester United are limited to a #4million a year total wage increase?
A: Not quite - the restriction only applies to the income from TV money. If clubs boost their income through extra sponsorship deals or matchday income, they can spend that on wages too.
Q: What do the new financial fair play (FFP) rules mean and which clubs will it effect?
A: These will put a ceiling on the amount of losses each club can make £105million over three years, but these have to guaranteed by owners.
Q: How does that compare to UEFA's FFP rules?
A: UEFA's are more stringent - losses over three years are limited to 45million euros (#39million).
Q: Which clubs fall foul of the #105million losses over three years figure?
A: On the most recent figures, Emirates Marketing Project, Chelsea, Liverpool and Aston Villa have all reported higher losses than #105million, but the trend is towards cutting losses and this will not apply until the three years before 2016.
Q: If a club's official annual figures show losses of #110million, will they automatically be in breach of the regulations?
A: Not necessarily - spending on academies, facilities and stadiums can be offset.
Q: What will happen if a club is found guilty of breaching the salary and spending regulations?
A: They are likely to have a points deduction.
Q: Has the final decision now been taken by the Premier League?
A: The principle of the regulations, and the figures involved, have been agreed. They do still need to be ratified at a meeting in April however.
Q: Is that just a rubber-stamping exercise?
A: It will probably go through - but the vote could not have been closer with only 13 of the 19 votes cast in favour, just scraping past the necessary two-thirds majority.
Q: Why did some clubs viewed as being well-run and not making losses vote against the regulations?
A: Some of them believe the Premier League should be a free market, are proud of the way they have run their clubs on a sustainable basis and resent being told what to do.
http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11662/8478435/New-rules-explained
.
Summary from SSN
The Premier League have voted in new financial regulations - we try and answer any questions.
Q: Will the Premier League now have a salary cap?
A: Not in the strict sense of the word. Clubs whose total wage bill is more than £52million will only be allowed to increase their wages by £4million per season for the next three years.
Q: So the likes of Manchester United are limited to a #4million a year total wage increase?
A: Not quite - the restriction only applies to the income from TV money. If clubs boost their income through extra sponsorship deals or matchday income, they can spend that on wages too.
Q: What do the new financial fair play (FFP) rules mean and which clubs will it effect?
A: These will put a ceiling on the amount of losses each club can make £105million over three years, but these have to guaranteed by owners.
Q: How does that compare to UEFA's FFP rules?
A: UEFA's are more stringent - losses over three years are limited to 45million euros (#39million).
Q: Which clubs fall foul of the #105million losses over three years figure?
A: On the most recent figures, Emirates Marketing Project, Chelsea, Liverpool and Aston Villa have all reported higher losses than #105million, but the trend is towards cutting losses and this will not apply until the three years before 2016.
Q: If a club's official annual figures show losses of #110million, will they automatically be in breach of the regulations?
A: Not necessarily - spending on academies, facilities and stadiums can be offset.
Q: What will happen if a club is found guilty of breaching the salary and spending regulations?
A: They are likely to have a points deduction.
Q: Has the final decision now been taken by the Premier League?
A: The principle of the regulations, and the figures involved, have been agreed. They do still need to be ratified at a meeting in April however.
Q: Is that just a rubber-stamping exercise?
A: It will probably go through - but the vote could not have been closer with only 13 of the 19 votes cast in favour, just scraping past the necessary two-thirds majority.
Q: Why did some clubs viewed as being well-run and not making losses vote against the regulations?
A: Some of them believe the Premier League should be a free market, are proud of the way they have run their clubs on a sustainable basis and resent being told what to do.
http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11662/8478435/New-rules-explained
jts1882
Dean Richards
Re: O/T Financial Fair Play - Now Voted In By The Premier League
So makes qualifying for the CL even more of an advantage. The increased PL TV money would have closed the gap between CL and non-CL clubs. But if the PL money can't be spent to increase wages except by a small amount (less as a percentage than the increased PL money), then the CL money which can be spent on wages becomes more important in attracting top players who require top wages.
It's funny ... well, not really ... that the one element of football club funding that is egalitarian is being restricted, thus allowing those in the CL, those with big stadia and those with rich owners to gain an advantage over the mid-table teams. However, from Spurs perspective, this increases the value of a new large stadium.
So makes qualifying for the CL even more of an advantage. The increased PL TV money would have closed the gap between CL and non-CL clubs. But if the PL money can't be spent to increase wages except by a small amount (less as a percentage than the increased PL money), then the CL money which can be spent on wages becomes more important in attracting top players who require top wages.
It's funny ... well, not really ... that the one element of football club funding that is egalitarian is being restricted, thus allowing those in the CL, those with big stadia and those with rich owners to gain an advantage over the mid-table teams. However, from Spurs perspective, this increases the value of a new large stadium.
Bullet
Andy Thompson
Re: O/T Financial Fair Play - Now Voted In By The Premier League
£4m is £75k per week, so if we give a new deal to 5 of our players and increase their wages by £15kpw, that is that. Increase fully spent?
I'm confused, the 'increased PL Central Funds' money doesn't come to us with a radioactive marker attached, so they can't see where it is spent... so I guess they will just look at our accounts for this year and say "OK you spent £80m on wages" (or whatever) so we can now spend £84m on wages.
Unless we can show we've made more money from merchandising and ticket sales etc... so if we'd had a rubbish cup run the year before, but a good cup run that year... we can spend that money too?
But we won't know how good our cup run is until we've already spent the money on wages for that year?
I don't get it, just seems totally unpoliceable
£4m is £75k per week, so if we give a new deal to 5 of our players and increase their wages by £15kpw, that is that. Increase fully spent?
I'm confused, the 'increased PL Central Funds' money doesn't come to us with a radioactive marker attached, so they can't see where it is spent... so I guess they will just look at our accounts for this year and say "OK you spent £80m on wages" (or whatever) so we can now spend £84m on wages.
Unless we can show we've made more money from merchandising and ticket sales etc... so if we'd had a rubbish cup run the year before, but a good cup run that year... we can spend that money too?
But we won't know how good our cup run is until we've already spent the money on wages for that year?
I don't get it, just seems totally unpoliceable
Re: O/T Financial Fair Play - Now Voted In By The Premier League
Bullet - have a look at the Q&A further up
Q: So the likes of Manchester United are limited to a #4million a year total wage increase?
A: Not quite - the restriction only applies to the income from TV money. If clubs boost their income through extra sponsorship deals or matchday income, they can spend that on wages too.
Bullet - have a look at the Q&A further up
Q: So the likes of Manchester United are limited to a #4million a year total wage increase?
A: Not quite - the restriction only applies to the income from TV money. If clubs boost their income through extra sponsorship deals or matchday income, they can spend that on wages too.
Robbo
Paul Walsh
Re: O/T Financial Fair Play - Now Voted In By The Premier League
Brilliantly put. =D> =D> =D>
Brilliantly put. =D> =D> =D>
Bullet
Andy Thompson
Re: O/T Financial Fair Play - Now Voted In By The Premier League
Yes I know, but how can you spend the money on wages from increased cup runs... whilst you are on those cup runs?
If we sign someone and say we'll give them £5m for the year in wages... but we can only do that if we go on a huge cup run and make £5m from the cups that same year he is playing?
I don't get it
Yes I know, but how can you spend the money on wages from increased cup runs... whilst you are on those cup runs?
If we sign someone and say we'll give them £5m for the year in wages... but we can only do that if we go on a huge cup run and make £5m from the cups that same year he is playing?
I don't get it
Re: O/T Financial Fair Play - Now Voted In By The Premier League
I presume they're referring to the following year?
I presume they're referring to the following year?