Premier League clubs have agreed in principle to introduce a spending cap

I like it, even if it doesn't benefit us. If it forces us to use more of our own youth players in the future thats a plus, seeing as Mainoo and Garnacho are doing fine. Maybe we'll be more creative in the transfer window, shopping in Argentina and Brazil ourselves and cutting out the middle man (Benfica, Ajax etc) :D.
 
Chipper said:
I'm seeing City voted against it. Would make me think it might restrict them in that case.

United too, and Villa. Less clear what's going on here.

Chelsea abstaining.
Click to expand...

The equity company that owns Villa is worth over 100 billion.

I know a number of Villa fans that have been moaning that it's not fair that they are being restricted on buying new players!
 
devilish said:
for the short term yes but football fuel business and not viceversa. Less money on the football side will translate to the league becoming less attractive, thus less revenue and then less dividends. That's what happened to the Serie A. There was a time when the best players in the world played there (Maradona, Platini, Baggio, Van Basten, Gullit etc). These days they are struggling to attract such huge revenue with the likes Giroud, Çalhanoglu and Gudmundsson
Click to expand...

It will take years for the PL to lose it's shine, and the Glazers and Ratcliffe will be long gone by that point I expect.
 
adexkola said:
@devilish appreciate the detail and astronomy analogy :D

Do you think the current proposal is too punitive? Is pegging the cap to 5 times the TV revenue of the smallest club too limiting?

Or would a reverse floor kind of work? Let's say United's revenue is 100M, the most in the league. Maybe define a framework where if you are a smaller club without the fans and or sponsors, you can accept external "artificial" funding of up to half or 75% of that amount, which provides you with more funds to spend. So the big clubs don't get limited, but the smaller clubs have more room to maneuver and compete.
Click to expand...

I am not an accountant but my idea would be

- revenue based. That would keep sugar daddies under control while concurrently protecting smaller clubs from a financial meltdown
- TV revenues should be distributed more fairly
- there should be incentives towards clubs that want to improve such revenue. For example infrastructure should be exempted from FFP rules + a certain amount of money should be put aside and made accessible for smaller clubs who want to improve their own infrastructure. Better and bigger stadiums can generate more money to their respective clubs (concerts etc) while better youth academies will benefit everyone.
- caps on squad sizes should be introduced while concurrently limiting how many players a club can send on loan. This would force the big clubs to get rid of fringe players/injury prone players often at a cut price.
- the FA should make sure that the financial renumeration for those winning the U18s leagues are increased. That should act as an incentive for smaller clubs to invest on youths who are often cheaper then buying from abroad.
- the FA should use some of the pot of money I've already mentioned to encourage the use of smaller clubs in pre season tours. Take for example United's tours in the US. Would it be more exciting for US fans to see a Brighton vs Manchester United at their home turf rather then United vs Seattle Sounders? I certainly would (ie Manchester United vs West ham rather then Manutd vs Naxxar Lions)
 
Last edited:
devilish said:
I am not an accountant but my idea would be

- revenue based. That would keep sugar daddies under control while concurrently protecting smaller clubs from a financial meltdown
- TV revenues should be distributed more fairly
- there should be incentives towards clubs that want to improve such revenue. For example infrastructure should be exempted from FFP rules + a certain amount of money should be put aside and made accessible for smaller clubs who want to improve their own infrastructure. Better and bigger stadiums can generate more money to their respective clubs (concerts etc) while better youth academies will benefit everyone.
- caps on squad sizes should be introduced while concurrently limiting how many players a club can send on loan. This would force the big clubs to get rid of fringe players/injury prone players often at a cut price.
- the FA should make sure that the financial renumeration for those winning the U18s leagues are increased. That should act as an incentive for smaller clubs to invest on youths who are often cheaper then buying from abroad.
Click to expand...

I don't really get how all of this ties together with FFP, but I thought that most of what you are proposing is already in place under FFP etc.
 
pocco said:
I don't really get how all of this ties together with FFP, but I thought that most of what you are proposing is already in place under FFP etc.
Click to expand...

I am not proposing a radical change simply because the EPL is already one of the most exciting and competitive leagues in the world. What I am proposing is simple tweaks to an already successful system.
 
devilish said:
I am not proposing a radical change simply because the EPL is already one of the most exciting and competitive leagues in the world. What I am proposing is simple tweaks to an already successful system.
Click to expand...

How does it work with FFP though? Can the PL give clubs a bigger allowance than they are allowed under FFP? I would imagine no. So it would have to be equal to or less than FFP for compliance.
 
MegadrivePerson said:
The equity company that owns Villa is worth over 100 billion.

I know a number of Villa fans that have been moaning that it's not fair that they are being restricted on buying new players!
Click to expand...
The new proposal does not work like that it’s tied to UEFA FSP and the new PL FSR.

A club like Newcastle and Villa with huge ambition want to be able to spend £400-500m on wages transfers and agent fees. They can not over trade, both clubs peak at the moment is £300m turnover with CL qualification, they are monitored by UEFA in the season of 25/26 and the FSP rule is 70%, meaning they can’t spend more than £210m on wages, agent fees and transfers if they want to play in the competition, the idea is simply to reign in City and United who have huge Revenue streams, one club legally and one club probably not!

City probably think they can achieve £800m revenue turnover by season 25/6 and the 70% rule which is in line with UEFA would give them £560m to spend on wages, transfers and agent fees, which would be £100m more than the Anchoring rule proposed. Bottom club TV revenue for 2024/25 season might be £103m multiplied by 4.5 which is the proposed compromise is a total spend of £463.5m would be the maximum allowed by any club.
 
pocco said:
How does it work with FFP though? Can the PL give clubs a bigger allowance than they are allowed under FFP? I would imagine no. So it would have to be equal to or less than FFP for compliance.
Click to expand...

I am no expert but I think it could work things out
 
Despite all the teeth-gnashing over the perceived reduction in EPL attraction for players compared to other leagues by a self-imposed salary cap, the cap is still pretty generous - this season only Chelsea would be exceeding it, and next season even they wouldn’t at current rates.

The numbers look like this -

a) proposed cap would be 5 times what the lowest earning side from the season before received in broadcast+commercial income from the EPL (last year’s proposal of a lower multiple of 4.5 was rejected by a larger number of clubs)

b) last season the lowest earning club was Southampton (£103.6m) so the cap for this season would be £518m - only Chelsea exceed the cap with a spend of £539m. Next in line are city (£501m), united (£453m), Liverpool (£412m), arsenal (£326m).

c) this season the lowest earning club would be Brentford (£109m) making next season’s cap £545m - meaning even if Chelsea continue with their bonkers current level of spending on player contracts they would still not exceed the cap.

In short, it’s basically paying lip service to the idea of a cap rather than a serious move to bring the out of control spending to heel.
 
adexkola said:
Baby steps :D

Eventually we move from revenue based caps to shared revenue and uniform caps across the board. Then draft picks. Then the draft show, with Cerefin coming out to boos from the English fan contigent
Click to expand...
Pft. We're Europeans. He doesn't get booed, he has to walk under riot police escort with a riot shield protecting them from the projectiles getting thrown at him
 
They could fix all this with squad number caps.

Limit clubs to 30 registered players and say 10 of them have to be developed at the club for 3 years before they turn 18.. Place further limits on how many youth players you are allowed to have on the books to prevent the likes of City and Chelsea farming youngsters for profit.

Doesn't matter if City are cheating if they are only allowed to spend their dirty money on 20 players - there is still plenty of room for everyone to compete. It also spreads the playing talent around the clubs and divisions. It rewards clubs who put a higher emphasis on player development and protects against a select few clubs stockpiling players to sit on the bench.
 
el_loco_bielsa said:
Despite all the teeth-gnashing over the perceived reduction in EPL attraction for players compared to other leagues by a self-imposed salary cap, the cap is still pretty generous - this season only Chelsea would be exceeding it, and next season even they wouldn’t at current rates.

The numbers look like this -

a) proposed cap would be 5 times what the lowest earning side from the season before received in broadcast+commercial income from the EPL (last year’s proposal of a lower multiple of 4.5 was rejected by a larger number of clubs)

b) last season the lowest earning club was Southampton (£103.6m) so the cap for this season would be £518m - only Chelsea exceed the cap with a spend of £539m. Next in line are city (£501m), united (£453m), Liverpool (£412m), arsenal (£326m).

c) this season the lowest earning club would be Brentford (£109m) making next season’s cap £545m - meaning even if Chelsea continue with their bonkers current level of spending on player contracts they would still not exceed the cap.

In short, it’s basically paying lip service to the idea of a cap rather than a serious move to bring the out of control spending to heel.
Click to expand...

Its not going to bring spending down but its essentially going to cap spending of the most profligate clubs at roughly the current level for a while. This is a good thing.

The Brentford and Southamptons of the world are not going to grow commercial revenue meaningfully and the league's newest broadcast deal essentially keeps that (bigger) portion of revenue flat until 2029.
 
The concern is that say it is five times the bottom club but then a smaller club wins the playoffs in the Championship and it drops from £400-500M to £200-250M.

Will all clubs spending more suddenly be in breach of this? How could you possibly enforce it because you have no idea who will get promoted or their earnings.

Lots of questions.
 
Considering the reason we voted against this was because we feel it would slow down the rebuild, does that mean we are going big in the summer?
 
The Premier league can write whatever rules they want. Until they are actually enforced effectively, they don't matter.

Clubs like City will always find a way around it. They will have Erling Haaland on minimum wage but mysteriously make an off the books payment to Haaland senior.
 
FujiVice said:
Considering the reason we voted against this was because we feel it would slow down the rebuild, does that mean we are going big in the summer?
Click to expand...
If United qualify for Europe, whether it is EL or Europa Conference League, the club this year can only spend 80% of last years revenue on wages, transfer cost, agent fees and amortised transfers(those fees which are on the book as owed payments for existing players)

The real issues for United is actual working capital, cashflow. Sir Jim paid $200m(£159m) to pay off the company credit card which was not able to be used in Winter for transfers because it was up to its max. The club needs to sell to really have a big summer spending spree, cash is important and most cash for transfers are paid in instalments, which is not really ideal . The club would love someone like Casemiro and Rashford for £30m to Saudi and £70m to PSG because both pay upfront so that would add a huge £100m of cash and probably aloo the club to spend £300m this summer.

I can’t see any huge spree without multiple departures.
 
Woziak said:
I can’t see any huge spree without multiple departures.
Click to expand...
I think there will be a lot to be honest. We're willing to listen to offers from almost everyone at the club. Not like they'd all go, but maybe the Sancho performances lets people know maybe a different sensory is best for all involved.
 
FujiVice said:
I think there will be a lot to be honest. We're willing to listen to offers from almost everyone at the club. Not like they'd all go, but maybe the Sancho performances lets people know maybe a different sensory is best for all involved.
Click to expand...
I’m not convinced Sancho is leaving, Berrada and Wilcox are fans.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.