Great time for a hard cap, when our team is in shambles and requires a full rebuild.
Premier League clubs have agreed in principle to introduce a spending cap
- Thread starter SilentWitness
- Start date
Execs in Madrid, Barcelona, Munich and Turin are laughing their holes off.
Years spent trying to weasel their way to a Super League so they can compete with the Premier League, all for nothing because now the league is going to kneecap itself for them. The only thing England has going for it when trying to entice players from picking nicer, warmer, more glamorous places to live and play, is the strength of the Premier League - this is going to take away that advantage and in ten years time, when the best players in the world are all playing in La Liga and Serie A, the same smaller clubs who are bitching about fairness now, will be moaning about why their TV revenues and prize money revenues have fallen through the floor.
You don't make something better by forcing the most successful parts of it to be more like it's least successful parts.
Allowing City to do what they did is what fecked football. This "solution" is just going to punish clubs who spent decades being "big clubs" without ever breaking the game, while allowing the likes of City to carry on with their cheating regardless of any new rules.
Stupid, stupid, stupid.
Years spent trying to weasel their way to a Super League so they can compete with the Premier League, all for nothing because now the league is going to kneecap itself for them. The only thing England has going for it when trying to entice players from picking nicer, warmer, more glamorous places to live and play, is the strength of the Premier League - this is going to take away that advantage and in ten years time, when the best players in the world are all playing in La Liga and Serie A, the same smaller clubs who are bitching about fairness now, will be moaning about why their TV revenues and prize money revenues have fallen through the floor.
You don't make something better by forcing the most successful parts of it to be more like it's least successful parts.
Allowing City to do what they did is what fecked football. This "solution" is just going to punish clubs who spent decades being "big clubs" without ever breaking the game, while allowing the likes of City to carry on with their cheating regardless of any new rules.
Stupid, stupid, stupid.
Except for players at a certain club that will make 'arrangements'.
Odd that Utd and City are the two grouped together in opposition, given the other big clubs have now "closed the gap". You'd think you'd be voting alongside your peers, Liverpool, Arsenal and ahem, Spurs, rather than with a vastly wealthy club who clearly and obviously outspend you. It makes no sense.... cough...
I'm just glad the cap is coming in and our massive revenue can go to those who really deserve it. the Glazer's.
Bore off you fecking WUM. Also Villa voted against it as well but that doesn’t fit your anti Utd agenda so you’ve conveniently left them out.
This will only favour the Spanish clubs.
Yep, don’t like this at all. Not to mention it gives 115 charges FC an even bigger advantage when they break the rules.
Pretty much. Always reminded of Gascoigne picking Spurs over us because they brought his mum a house.
There will countless extras/bonuses that clubs give players which don’t show up on the balance sheets.
Exactly. You're one disgruntled City player/agent away from under-the-table payments being blown into the open. Plus, you know, tax evasion on the part of both club and players.
This is the key part. Talk about City being able to field 2 XIs has always been ridiculous, but even now they have insane depth. With a spending cap, you have to let some players go, because they can earn more elsewhere.
Great post! Couldn't agree more
The second sentence shows you why the first sentence won't happen.
Not trying to WUM, I just got absolutely shouted down by multiple people on here for daring to suggest Utd were the leagues biggest spenders. Just thought it was interesting that that appears to have been supported here. Not everyone who disagrees with you is winding you up, you know.
And I didn’t mention Villa because I didn’t know about Villa, but don’t let that affect your assumption that I’ve deliberately left them out. I can only assume their owners are looking to spend, and spend big in the near future.
Does the cap include offshore/under the table payments?
Look at the Lance Armstrong case; some people who came forward were also complicit in the blood doping; they just wanted to see the world burn as well.
It's easy to make clubs wary of breaching the spending cap, like it's done in the NFL. Franchises have the money and resources to get talent in for cheap while paying under the table; they don't, because the downsides if caught are terrifying.
And if the current reason the PL brings in so much money, is it being more competitive than Serie A/Bundesliga/La Liga (I mean, City's made a mockery of that notion in recent years but let's pretend for a second), then instituting this sort of salary cap makes the league even more competitive by spreading talent around, which should bring in more revenue to compensate for the spending cap... right?
Not sure this gonna works with City. They have a team of world best lawyers on their side helping them broke all the FFP rules for both EUFA and PL. So far nothing happened to them.
Even when they are charged with 115 charges their owner came out gave an interview basically laughed off the PL charges.
Even when they are charged with 115 charges their owner came out gave an interview basically laughed off the PL charges.
I called you a WUM because that’s exactly what you are. I’ve seen numerous posts from you on here that contain some sort of sly dig at Utd. So the question is, why sign up to a Man Utd forum in the first place? Sad as feck if you ask me but you do you.
I think you should reread my posts. The majority are on the politics forum, and the majority of the footballers ones are generally about random players, and /or Ipswich, . Again, I’m allowed to have an opinion and as I say it’s interesting to view Utd’s actions today in relation to some of the claims that were made a couple of weeks ago. It doesn’t tally, in my opinion.
I mean this with respect, Man Utd have spent an incredible amount of money to be as sh*t as you are. That you might need to spend smarter rather than harder in the future is no bad thing IMO, would anyone have sanctioned that Antony deal if there was a spending cap?
Add Casemeiro, Mount, Onana
No lawyer is getting you off the fact that you spent $150M in a year you should have spent $50M. This rule is harder to break than "you can only spend "legitimate" income", because expenditure is harder to mask
Oh, teams spend stupid even with spending caps. Then you're fecked for a decade, instead of a season
Still need more details, and what help it will be to clubs and fans, but I agree completely. I hated the stupid money we were pissing away that could have been used on our stadium, training facilities and academy than buying overpriced shit players.
Thankfully, we have reduced our wage bill already, and will be reduced again with some high earners leaving.
They can make spending 150M "officially looks like 50M"?
Man United won several titles and competed with the best in Europe for close to two decades after the formation of the PL. During this time we were far richer in relation to the rest of the footballing world than we are today, and at no point during that 20 years, did we come close to breaking football in the way it has been broken since a state was allowed to buy into the league. The money we have spent trying to keep pace with them is of course ridiculous, but it has been spent on book and above board, in a fruitless attempt to challenge a competitor playing by no such rules.
A club the size of Man United being forced to keep spending in line with a club like Luton Town isn't going to result in smarter spending - it's going to result in the best players moving to leagues with no such restrictions, a reduction in quality of the league, and an overall smaller pot for everyone to share. In a decade, when everyone except City and Newcastle is shite, I hope everyone will be happy with their fairer league.
No lawyer on Earth is going to be able to prove what an Abu Dhabi owned football club has payed into an Abu Dhabi based bank account.
You can't make transfer spending smaller. Because there is another club on the other side, that for the purposes of FFP and shrewd business, is better off accurately reporting their income.
Wages is a bit more difficult, however player value is openly known. You can't squeeze Mbappe, Haaland, De Bruyne, Bellingham, Vinicius Jr, Ter Stegen and a few others into the same team and claim you're only paying £10m in wages per year. There's smaller room for you to get away with funky behavior.
So, maybe you can make 150M look like 140M, if you're desperate enough. Beyond that, it's not going to work.
@diarm this is why City chose to (allegedly) inflate income in the beginning. Because the inverse (falsely reducing spend counts) is orders of magnitude more difficult.
Agree with this. All this "hard cap" is going to do is make the league more mediocre and spread talent back to the big clubs abroad. This isn't the NFL where there are only 30 teams and a draft set in place to encourage parity from the start, and it's not going to stop City from doing any cheating anyways.
This is essentially the PL owners looking to take a bigger slice of the pie now that the league is bringing in more money than ever before. It has nothing to do with "competition"
No it won't
Milan can barely compete with the likes of Bournemouth for talent. And PL teams will still prioritize big spendings. The only difference is they may use youth spots to fill the roster instead of overpaying for a Spanish player from Getafe
The PL is good
You absolutely can put tens of millions in agent costs and signing bonuses “somewhere else”, which they very likely did with Haaland.
That’s also nonsense again though, you absolutely can have some players on 200k /week that in reality are on 200k + 120k in Abu Dhabi Sponsoring, similar with their management. We already know they did it Mancini, and Pep staying at Man fecking City for almost a decade tells some story; yet he makes less than Simone…. Sure
Won't the league of equals where every team can match the other as advertised by Skysport be thee dream?
Anyone who signed Haaland would have had to pay the same money to agents and his da. That's why they carefully structured his contracts from Salsburg to Dortmund to City.
Mbappe is joining Real Madrid on a free. You think it's actually free just because Real Madrid are Real Madrid?
That’s also nonsense again though, you absolutely can have some players on 200k /week that in reality are on 200k + 120k in Abu Dhabi Sponsoring, similar with their management. We already know they did it Mancini, and Pep staying at Man fecking City for almost a decade tells some story; yet he makes less than Simone…. Sure
But again you run into problems with tax evasion. If you as a player are playing in the UK and you are playing for a PL club, unless I'm mistaken, you owe tax on income received from your club for playing in said country. So unless you're (in conspiracy mode) thinking many players are up for fecking with the HRMC by hiding income paid to an Abu Dhabi account...
A lot of what you've written in this thread echoes my thoughts exactly. It does beg the question why we are against the cap, but as someone wrote somewhere else perhaps it's in part because it should skyrocket the price of football clubs and might make it even harder / impossible to shift the glazers: if state owned clubs can't get around the wage cap it should in theory ensure clubs with massive revenue like United are "forced" to remain profitable and therefore become more stable investments.
Aye, but one club can pay it by very selective means, as in Etihad airlines can pay it as a sponsorship deal.
There’s a reason he ended up at City & not Madrid man.
Doesn’t have to go into an Abu Dhabi account though does it? It can simply be a sponsorship deal paid into your UK account.
This is the part many don’t seem to understand. Mancini could be paid extra for “consulting”. And you can give the likes of Haaland huge signing-on fees, especially when you buy a player at below market rate rate through a release clause or an expiring contract.
But City cheating isn’t about their spending. It’s about the source of the income. City lying about how much they spend on transfer fees would require every club that deals with them to commit fraud on a huge scale, which they would have no incentive to do. Whereas City lying about their sponsorship deals (what they’re actually accused of) only implicates companies that are related or indirectly controlled by City’s owners.
City don’t want rules that limit spending as that takes away their main advantage versus their rivals. The same is true for United. Presumably Villa’s owners were planning on going big. And Chelsea abstaining is an interesting middle ground.
Madrid was not interested in Haaland they were all in for Mbappe
It really depends on what the clubs do with the money they'd save on wages. If they make ticket prices lower then great but it it's just more dividends for shareholders, feck that, I'd rather the players get the dosh.
I’m gonna believe Romano in fairnes over kaiser from the caf.
And logic tells you that of course Madrid were interested at the price he was available for.
I really don’t understand what all the fuss is about over this. It doesn’t start to 2025/26 and the lowest team’s TV revenue will be at least £105m for season 24/25.
All PL clubs that qualify for the Europe for the season of 25/26 are all limited to 70% of overall revenue from that season. Assuming that Man United and City who both voted against this achieve £700m revenue legally, then they could only spend £490m on Wages, Agent Fees and Transfers plus existing amortised transfer costs.
The anchoring rule is pushing the narrative that a PL team could only spend a max of 4.5 or 5.0 times the lowest PL teams received TV/Media Revenue.
Therefore from season 2025/26 the maximum allowed by any team would be either £472.5m or £525m which coincidentally is in line with UEFA 70% FSP rule.
The irony is City will be thinking they can circumvent all new FFP rules and regulations by creating record revenues of £800m next year would make no difference in the EPL however they would not be able to spend £560m on wages, agent fees and transfers under the new anchoring rules.
It’s also worth noting that City could be playing Championship football in 2025/26 season and with no CL and PL money and therefore reduced merchandising deals their turnover would probably drop by 25 to 33% overnight, in which case they would have been better to vote for the rule !!!
All PL clubs that qualify for the Europe for the season of 25/26 are all limited to 70% of overall revenue from that season. Assuming that Man United and City who both voted against this achieve £700m revenue legally, then they could only spend £490m on Wages, Agent Fees and Transfers plus existing amortised transfer costs.
The anchoring rule is pushing the narrative that a PL team could only spend a max of 4.5 or 5.0 times the lowest PL teams received TV/Media Revenue.
Therefore from season 2025/26 the maximum allowed by any team would be either £472.5m or £525m which coincidentally is in line with UEFA 70% FSP rule.
The irony is City will be thinking they can circumvent all new FFP rules and regulations by creating record revenues of £800m next year would make no difference in the EPL however they would not be able to spend £560m on wages, agent fees and transfers under the new anchoring rules.
It’s also worth noting that City could be playing Championship football in 2025/26 season and with no CL and PL money and therefore reduced merchandising deals their turnover would probably drop by 25 to 33% overnight, in which case they would have been better to vote for the rule !!!