What's new

Financial Fair Play (general thread)

Westmorlandspur

Well-Known Member
Feb 1, 2013
3,150
5,134
This does beg the question of who is actually in a position to buy these players?

I'd add Arsenal to that list as not only are they struggling with FFP they have to sign Raya. So they can't buy at the moment. Liverpool are not exactly big spenders unless they sell Salah and it's doubtful they'd do it before the 30th. City will wonder if there is any point with the breaches.

So who, United maybe, us, west ham?

Who of those clubs would bother paying 50m for MGW or Gallagher, when there is little competition.

Wages will be a big issue as well, so actually selling your high earners is off the table.

It'll be interesting to see if anyone is sold by the 30th June. It might turn into a new transfer deadline day as well. Levy will have a field day if the clubs really do have to sell.
Wouldn’t be surprised if City go and get Bruno from Newcastle.
 

spursfan77

Well-Known Member
Aug 13, 2005
47,122
106,156
Nah, it'll just lead to new regulations being set out that can't be gotten around.

I suspect they are working on these anyway now. They could make it a condition of them that membership of the league is conditional on them signing up and agreeing to the new rules.
 

Mycroft Jones

Well-Known Member
Aug 31, 2012
372
663
I suspect they are working on these anyway now. They could make it a condition of them that membership of the league is conditional on them signing up and agreeing to the new rules.
Jesus! I hope not. The Premier League doesn't exist as an independent entity it is made up of the 20 member clubs. If the members outside of Man City, Newcastle et al were shown to be getting together to formulate new rules they would demonstrably be acting as an anti competitive cartel just as Man City allege.
 

RJR1949

Well-Known Member
Jan 31, 2013
1,071
6,111
Jesus! I hope not. The Premier League doesn't exist as an independent entity it is made up of the 20 member clubs. If the members outside of Man City, Newcastle et al were shown to be getting together to formulate new rules they would demonstrably be acting as an anti competitive cartel just as Man City allege.
It would be an anti-competitive cartel if the other clubs were to form a rule that made it impossible for City to join (for example, if they were to try to ban clubs owned by foreign governments) but rules to guarantee fair competition on the pitch would be OK.
 

Westmorlandspur

Well-Known Member
Feb 1, 2013
3,150
5,134
I keep hearing pundits and journalists saying there is something wrong with the system if teams are forced to sell HG players to balance the books.

Well no one is forced to do that. The rules haven't created this problem, inept decision making from the clubs owners have, and it's the reason they are where they are.

If over half the clubs in the Premier league of all different sizes and standings, can manage to stay within PSR regulations then they all can. They are choosing not to.
One of the most vociferous in this is Sam Matterface on Talksport . Surprisingly he is a Chelsea supporter.
But Chelsea were selling academy players well before the Americans arrived. They sold 3 to help pay for Lukaku.
 

Nick-TopSpursMan

Well-Known Member
Aug 4, 2005
4,483
22,943
As I mentioned in the Chelsea thread this section is quite important:


The amendment failed, however, because several clubs thought the wording of the ban was too wide, according to people with knowledge of the proposal. It did not clearly distinguish between the type of non-football revenues that clubs believe they should be encouraged to exploit, such as building hotels, houses or indoor arenas, and the accountancy tricks of selling existing property to yourself.

It is therefore almost certain that the Premier League will try to tighten up its proposal and bring it back to the clubs, as it believes it needs more tools to effectively regulate the clubs to ensure sustainability and fair competition.
 

Spriggan

7 inches from the midday sun!
Jun 15, 2012
1,068
2,061
As I mentioned in the Chelsea thread this section is quite important:


The amendment failed, however, because several clubs thought the wording of the ban was too wide, according to people with knowledge of the proposal. It did not clearly distinguish between the type of non-football revenues that clubs believe they should be encouraged to exploit, such as building hotels, houses or indoor arenas, and the accountancy tricks of selling existing property to yourself.

It is therefore almost certain that the Premier League will try to tighten up its proposal and bring it back to the clubs, as it believes it needs more tools to effectively regulate the clubs to ensure sustainability and fair competition.
I don't do Twatter, or whatever it's called, so can't see the content, but this snippet helps give me an idea (y)
 

muppetman

Well-Known Member
Jul 29, 2011
9,879
27,612
As I mentioned in the Chelsea thread this section is quite important:


The amendment failed, however, because several clubs thought the wording of the ban was too wide, according to people with knowledge of the proposal. It did not clearly distinguish between the type of non-football revenues that clubs believe they should be encouraged to exploit, such as building hotels, houses or indoor arenas, and the accountancy tricks of selling existing property to yourself.

It is therefore almost certain that the Premier League will try to tighten up its proposal and bring it back to the clubs, as it believes it needs more tools to effectively regulate the clubs to ensure sustainability and fair competition.
But presumably not in time to stop Chelsea getting away with this time.
 

Saoirse

Well-Known Member
Aug 20, 2013
6,181
15,698
As I mentioned in the Chelsea thread this section is quite important:


The amendment failed, however, because several clubs thought the wording of the ban was too wide, according to people with knowledge of the proposal. It did not clearly distinguish between the type of non-football revenues that clubs believe they should be encouraged to exploit, such as building hotels, houses or indoor arenas, and the accountancy tricks of selling existing property to yourself.

It is therefore almost certain that the Premier League will try to tighten up its proposal and bring it back to the clubs, as it believes it needs more tools to effectively regulate the clubs to ensure sustainability and fair competition.
In this case it's probably very good news for us that it didn't get through in its current form, considering that we're literally building a hotel, houses, and (by the rumours) an arena.
 

SirHarryHotspur

Well-Known Member
Aug 9, 2017
5,642
8,568
Where are we with all those stories that some clubs need to sell by June 30th so as to comply with FFP/PSR , it seems the rules change every week so I am completely lost who needs to sell and who doesn't and by when.
Story below as an example.

 

luRRka

Well-Known Member
Jul 27, 2008
3,952
17,099
Where are we with all those stories that some clubs need to sell by June 30th so as to comply with FFP/PSR , it seems the rules change every week so I am completely lost who needs to sell and who doesn't and by when.
Story below as an example.

Think it's those clubs except chelsea. Sky have run an updated story saying they now no longer need to sell (to avoid breaching psr this year) thanks to the hotel nonsense. They should still need to sell in general in order to spend. The rest do need to sell.

The last story I read on villa said they needed 60m to avoid psr penalties
 

Trix

Well-Known Member
Jul 29, 2004
20,667
344,505
Think it's those clubs except chelsea. Sky have run an updated story saying they now no longer need to sell (to avoid breaching psr this year) thanks to the hotel nonsense. They should still need to sell in general in order to spend. The rest do need to sell.

The last story I read on villa said they needed 60m to avoid psr penalties
That is still up in the air as I understand it.
 

rossdapep

Well-Known Member
Aug 25, 2011
22,954
83,309
Top