Financial Fair Play (general thread)

[BehindEnemyLines]

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]

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

 

[SirHarryHotspur]

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]

 

[GMI]

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

 

[chas vs dave]

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

 

[cwy21]

Near future compared to the heat death of the universe?

 

[Albertbarich]

They're getting off with it either way.

It's all corrupt to the very core

 

[SirHarryHotspur]

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]

 

[SirHarryHotspur]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Marty]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.