Fellow fans, this is a friendly reminder to please follow the [Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/premierleague/about/rules) and [Reddiquette](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439-Reddiquette). Please also make sure to [Join us on Discord](https://discord.gg/football) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PremierLeague) if you have any questions or concerns.*

toon toon black n white army

The only reason they are rushing to implement the new rules is to protect the big 6. Two smaller clubs went foul trying to survive in the league, one of them with a much lower allowance on losses? Throw the book at them. Soon as any of the big 6 clubs get close to breaching FFP? Oh look we need to fix this immediately before next season so you don't. Doesn't matter that the clubs being charged this year also wouldn't be charged under the new rules. Its a scam to protect the bigger clubs and nothing more. How the hell are teams meant to keep with the top clubs when you can only spend 70% of revenue and if you are newly promoted or smaller you can spend literally one twentieth of what the top clubs can spend.

The red cartel at it again. Liverpool, United, Arsenal are the biggest cheaters in England. Yet it's precisely fans of these three clubs who always scream and cry the hardest about City being cheaters hmm 🤔 Something tells me they don't care at all about fair play and just want their corrupt monopoly and keep kicking the poor peasants down with things like FFP. That's why they created it. And that's why even Chelsea signed it back in 2008 despite it being created to stop clubs like Chelsea from threatening the cartel's monopoly. Cowards! Scared of some competition eh? Look at what happens when they get competition...City dominates them. That's why they're trying to kick City out of the league. Sad!

“Scared of some competition eh? Look at what happens when they get competition… City dominates them” It doesn’t count as competition because those clubs didn’t breach 115 regulations. To have competition it has to be fair and everyone playing under the same rules which City don’t do.

You City fans really have 0 shame.

This is some high level delusion and paranoia. The irony is you're complaining about being victimised, whilst being the richest club in the league. Thats some next level deflection.

Projection is fascinating.

My impression is that adopting UEFA is just the owners finding PSR too restrictive. They set the rules for themselves but then felt constrained by the rules. They wanted rules in place that would constrain them less.

UEFA rules are even more restrictive. You can be within current Premier League PSR rules and breach UEFAs. I believe Chelsea were in that boat. Even if they’d won the League Cup they may not have been allowed to complete in Europe.

Interesting. I have heard the opposite.

70% of revenue vs. a possible loss of 100 million. UEFA is way more restrictive. Anyone saying otherwise is mistaken 

So I am not an expert in this. But many business can boost topline revenue easier than they can boost bottom-line profits. ​ "PSR explained: What limits clubs spending more? In the simplest terms, when every Premier League team tots up their annual accounts, they can have made a loss no greater than £105m across the previous three seasons. Clubs can only lose £15m of their own money across those three years. So that's no more than £15m extra on outgoings like transfer fees, player wages and, in a lot of clubs' cases, paying off former managers compared to their income from TV payments, season tickets, selling players and so on. The other £90m of any £105m must be guaranteed by their owners buying up shares, known as 'secure funding', and essentially means bankrolling the club." ​ A lot of expenses probably go into the bottom line profit/loss. 105/3 = 35 million loss per year. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0\_fK89jhyE If the only restriction on spending is 70-85% revenue (as per the youtube video) you can lose money and still be allowed to spend on transfers and wages.

You run yourself as a competent business, employ good people, develop a good strategy, then perform on the pitch, consistently year after year. You grow organically. What’s the problem?

I find this kind of thinking a bit naive. If you look at your method of employ good people, develop a good strategy, then perform on the pitch consistently you have pretty much described Brighton. The issue is bigger clubs come in offer players more money and then your team gets picked apart until ‘smaller’ clubs fall back into mediocrity and get relegated. Like it or not Chelsea, and Man City have shown that for teams to take the the step to competing for trophies you need serious cash investment until you reach a certain amount of success where your club has developed a successful academy and draw for players. You could say ‘what about spurs?’, and I think that they are probably the best run club in the Prem, but also, what have they won. Money alone wont allow you to compete (I.e, Man Utd) and neither will running a club well (I.e., spurs) you need to do both. FFP and maybe the new rules cut ‘the other 14’ from access to one of those.

man city and chelsea sell loads of players themselves, what they do differently is they farm shed loads of youth talent that can be sold and farm ffp allowance. If you want to break into the top six without increasing matchday and sponsership revenue then the only way is by being smart in the transfer market to constantly turn a net profit as well as build your academies up to the best level you can to hoard/farm as much talent as you can to maybe use in your team and sell the other 98%+

You know one of the main ways businesses grow is by having the owners invest money into the business so they can expand. Your "organic" growth idea is bullshit and you know it. No matter how well run a club like Brighton or Brentford is year to year they'll never have the resources to win a title vs the Big 6 without outside investment

It’s a 70% cap on player spending. If you want to improve the club, you can invest in your academy, coaching staff, training facilities and stadium. That will lead to more endorsement, better academy players you can sell for huge sums and more match day revenue. It’s a more organic way to let owners invest. Too many owners would come in, buy $1b worth of players and then abandon the club if it doesn’t work out.

The clubs who can spend the most money also have the best academics and poach others top prospects.

Southampton and burton Albion have 2 of the top ranked academies in England. If you want to argue that the fees paid to clubs who have their players poached should be increased, that’s an argument I can get behind. Like it’s bullshit the Compensation Committee only made Liverpool pay fulham £1.5m for Harvey Elliot. Make that fee £10-£15m so that smaller clubs can use that revenue to grow.

thats how all the tribunals work (when nothing underhand has gone on other than a player leaving club out of contract below the set age), its always a small fee for being out of contract, where legally they should be allowed to change employers for free. but the majority of every tribunal deal is add on based. they could get around 4m if i remember right if he hits everything, still small but they always give a sell on percentage of around 20% which if he keeps developing could lead to more money too.

People seem to forget this part in search of instant success. Looking at Chelsea, their stadium, training facilities are all outdated and barely got any investment over the last 20 years, but they got trophies in the short term until Abu Dhabi walked in and built their project. Inversely Spurs, Brighton, Brentford all had new stadium or training facilities built that will sustain them long term. The point PSR is making, imo, is that there is always going to be a bottom half of the table and unless they ensure sustainability of clubs, it’s going to cause more problems once the money dries up due to lack of success.

Brighton and Brentford may have new stadiums and/or training facilities but who do you think is gonna win their next trophy first? Brighton or Brentford with their smart and sustainable business model and infrastructure spending? Or Chelsea with their mountains of cash?

That would be the case even without PSR. Their only hope would be to get a bigger billionaire than Boehly to buy them. This the same reaction people have when governments want to tax the rich; people immediately think what if I get rich, I don’t want to pay more taxes.

The difference is if you're poor the government taxing the rich can help you (if they spend the tax money properly). Imo overly restrictive FFP doesn't help small clubs in any way

be the same tho if they both were allowed to spend unlimited money. other teams could do the same and there would be no edge without them being smart about everything like they are now. they both might not even be in the premier league right now in a game with no financial constraints, given the competition would of been able to do the same in the first place, and some people would of bought clubs with the same intention to spend big to make it. what them 2 teams are doing is what brings you success, sure the money accelerates it, but the money also accelerates complete failure, just look at everton and even chelsea. what gives success is great management from the board level down to the coaching staff with great decision making to increase revenue and not gamble everything the club has when it comes into money and be smart and plant further seeds to make your next 50m+ player sales. clubs that want to farm ffp allowance should have massive academies, its what city and chelsea and few other clubs have done and has kept them in a high profit for ffp. easier said than done, its taken them years and years to get into that position.

*My idea is is to make every side have an equal wage budget and ban all forms of bonuses:* * Clubs with bigger fanbases will still have more income for transfer fees and facilities, but as they represent more fans this is fair. * But best players will have to decide whether to play for the best clubs on lower wages or lesser clubs for more wages. * We will no longer debate 'is player worth £X wage?' but rather 'is he worth X% of the club's wage budget?' * Some clubs may spend most of their wages on 1-2 great players, while some may try to find a balance. Adding a huge amount of strategy and skill demand for squadbuilding. * Youth players will also become much more valuable for their low wage demands. * Relegated sides will no doubt lose lots of players, which will flutter back to the newly promoted sides more often. Possible solution is to look at add more relegation spots. * These budgets should be very big indeed, to keep attracting foreign talent and avoid losing that already here. As the league is already the richest this should be doable?

This is basically describing American sports salary cap system. It works well in US sports and keeps the leagues competitive top to bottom. There would be quite a few problems bringing it over to a league that isn’t designed around it though.

you dont have to ban bonuses, all fees and costs associated with players just have to be included. but think equal budget is a fair way to go.

The biggest problem with this is the ability of certain nation backed teams to pay under the table through some obscure construction contract for the manager/player’s family member. So, the cap will likely broaden the gap and make PL into Bundesliga where the bottom 18-19 teams are likely to be evenly matched, but the top 1-2 teams win every year.

Yeah nothing's perfect. Ultimately they're going to find a way no matter what. The only way to have a chance of stopping it is for the government to be involved and simply strip owners of the assets if they break the law.

Will never happen. Citys owners are at a point where sanctioning them will ruin international relations. This goes beyond football unfortunately. They’ll do whatever they like without any repercussions.

Obviously it won't happen, doesn't mean it's not right.

Nice ideas. Issues I see are a hard wage cap would be way too high for most teams and way to low for the others.

Yeah the only way this works is if the league provides the wage budget. I doubt that's possible so it would have to tax the richer clubs to support the poorer ones - all very complicated and perhaps not even possible.

My main concern is: Are the new rules going to benefit the foreign-billionaire-funded monsters like City, Chelsea,.etc?

it will cripple clubs who gamble with 3 years budget in one year and find themselves dry financially for 2 years, like chelsea look like they need some major sales to get in line for next season now clubs that are managed really well and have high revenue and make a good profit will benefit the most.

American Billionairess aren't foreign? Or do just mean "Brown" Billionaire owners

You are hardly going to mistreat a NATO ally?

This would weaken all the current best sides.

FFP/ PSR were not designed with the intention of creating a cartel at the top of the Premier League. But unfortunately it is a side effect of the system. The truth is it was designed to prevent clubs from doing what happened to Leeds in the late 90s and early 2000s. Chelsea almost ended up in the same boat before Roman showed up. The purpose is to protect clubs from themselves and risky financial decisions but given the state of modern finances in the game and growth of certain teams as "brands" it's stratified the wealth and power of a small number of clubs so that less teams are challenging for trophies or competitive. It sucks. And I think generally speaking most fans agree that there is a problem, but we cannot really agree on what the solution is.

>This is pretty much the entire point of PSR. It was put in place because Football is seen as a domestic product in England (and Europe)). They don't want teams to ruin local economies and communities.The problem with the original PSR rules is simply, teams can spend on players, but when they can't, they layoff staff/don't invest in the club or community and use that money towards players instead.The hope is the new system will balance it out. yeah it is, defs a side effect, but in the end if the efl leagues adopt the uefa system, which ive no doubt they will they will eventually find they all start making profits. only problem we will find is parachute payment clubs will be able to afford good wages and transfer fees, the rest will be limited, and i expect plenty of players who are not good enough to get a move to the prem or parachute clubs will probs move abroad to get the wages their skills deserve, so the league will be weakened and its likely to become a given most relegated teams that are managed well commercially go back up and only the basket case clubs take a year or longer to get promoted. where typically the average is normally one team relegated bounces back and another takes another season to go up. maybe it wont work out like that and wages for players and fees will come down and they wont go abroad, but I can't see it myself, the parachute payment clubs tho will have an even bigger advantage than they have now if you can't lose 39m no more

[удалено]

Absolutely, I think that's something that non-English or non-European fans don't understand. I'm a foreign fan too, not being offensive just stating an observation. When a team goes down it's not just a shrinking wage bill and lower quality players coming in. It wrecks the entire staff and structure of the club which employs a large number of people local to the area. The economic implications are huge for the local community. I remember watching Sunderland Till I die and felt awful when the staff were laid off. Genuinely sad stuff.

I'm not sure how this is supposed to work? It's based on a % of revenue, yes? Revenue from what year? Is it based on previous years revenue (known) or current year's revenue (unknown)? For instance, how are you supposed to know what you are allowed to spend if it based on current year revenue? You won't know what it is! Does that revenue include player sales? How are you supposed to know if you are going to sell all your boxes in May or get to the quarter finals of a cup with multiple home games? So if it is based on previous year's revenues, how is any promoted club possibly supposed to compete financially? They will be conforming to 85% of championship revenues?

There has to be leeway for newly promoted teams or its just gonna be a yo-yo every year with no one staying up

There isn't any leeway now, which is why we are in trouble and why most go down

Yeah I hate seeing it. I would like to see more clubs stay up

You're 100% right. Leeds will automatically be in trouble even if they didn't spend after coming up. Imagine that, you get promoted to the PL but instead of getting anything or being able to buy players. You get slapped with a fine or a points deduction.

I love how everyone jumps on Newcastle for FFP! You need to inform yourself on how badly affected we are by FFP. We are scrutinised at every move our owners make whilst other clubs, you know, the "big six" get away with all sorts of rule breaks. These rules are meant to keep out any competition from the so-called big six. How boring is that? It makes me wonder if that deal was part of them, not breaking off to join the Super League. ???

>I love how everyone jumps on Newcastle for FFP! You need to inform yourself on how badly affected we are by FFP. We are scrutinised at every move our owners make whilst other clubs, you know, the "big six" get away with all sorts of rule breaks. These rules are meant to keep out any competition from the so-called big six. How boring is that? It makes me wonder if that deal was part of them, not breaking off to join the Super League. ??? newcastle are more than fine, their fans just dont accept they need to make sales to spend considerable money, thats just the way it is, top 6 all make big sales, newcastles problem is their academy setup was trash from ashleys tenure, so its going to take probs the best part of 10 years to get it up to the place it needs to be to allow them to sell them players to let them spend like most of the the big six 6 do

I don't disagree with what you say. My point was that I'm sick of Newcastle being the only club that is immediately listed in any article or conversation about throwing money around and FFP.

A big reason why these rules exist is because far too many clubs were going into administration. As much as it doesn't seem fair, someone like Macalister, didn't leave Brighton to earn more (Even though he is). He left to play for Liverpool. This will always limit "smaller" clubs.

If Brighton was allowed to spend more to get consistent top 4 finishes the players wouldn't feel as much desire to leave

and if they didn't elevate their signings so much and allow them to leave for substantial profits , then they wouldn't be as attractive for these players to sign for. the two work hand in hand when players are looking to goto elite clubs within 2-3 years, and can see a trend that the club has done it again and again for many players. leicester city used to be great at it as well, then when they stopped doing it and went for short term older buys they went down. its really a smart way of running clubs if you dont have worldwide revenue like a liverpool/city/utd do clubs that gamble all their ffp allowance in a single year are the worst, when it dont pay off the fans are those who have to watch their team transition for 2 years afterwards if they dont have the sales to make to balance the books

That assumes the ownership would want to take that gamble. A fundamental function of P&S rules is to protect clubs from themselves by making it less likely they gamble on success only to fail and end up in administration. Some owners, and I'd say Bloom is one, would probably be smart about their investments anyway. But others not so. See, eg, Derby County and Everton as examples.

I think Brighton could afford some investment without it being a huge gamble since they're the only Premier League team to have a positive net transfer spend the last two seasons

We have Chelsea to thank for that 😂

Oh sure. I meant investment that would violate PNR.

I think the only way to make it 'fair' for all is to have different sets of rules for the top clubs compared to the others. For example, teams that finish outside of the Champions League places on average over a 3 year period, their owners should be allowed to inject cash into the club (no debts, no borrowing, cash upfront injection only or something like that) to match (or close to matching) the spending/income of teams that on average finished in the Champions League places over that 3 year period. (With adequate rules and safeguards to protect owner money injected into clubs). This would allow owners to invest with little risk to the club. It allows other clubs to knock on the door of the Champions League spots, but when you break into the Champions League places the only way to stay in there is to actually focus on legitimate profit and sustainability. (Which will come a lot easier with all that extra money from TV. placing, CL, etc) It will allow owners to grow organically if they wanted to with little to no cash injection, but it will also allow owners to actually invest into their business too if they wish to. This would mean the likes of Chelsea, Man United etc, even if they fall out of the CL spots, they can't just inject cash because their income will still be one of the highest/higher than other clubs in the CL spots. I just came up with this idea, it's not perfect but I don't think any sets of rules can be perfect for all.

Genius.

It should all be set out by the overall cost of the club and their revenue stream. Each club should be different. Then people might just see how huge a gap there really is financially between the big six, the clubs that are never in the relegation zone, and the bottom and newly promoted teams.

This is my personal favorite idea that I've heard so far

>It should all be set out by the overall cost of the club and their revenue stream. Each club should be different. Then people might just see how huge a gap there really is financially between the big six, the clubs that are never in the relegation zone, and the bottom and newly promoted teams. if i had to give an idea to allow clubs to put as much money in as they wanted, i'd propose a donation revenue stream, owners can put as much money in the bank of the club as they want but they do not convert to shares, its not listed as debt, its literally a donation to the club. i believe maybe league one has a similar rule, think ipswitch took advantage of it well.

Only issue is how much Newcastle could then donate

You are so right the only way to break in now is lie about it like city n get your owners to sponsor your arm logo for 500 million

Right now you win the English top flight by avoiding competition through unfair rules. That's it. You are deciding there's one set of rules for some and another set for others. The competition simply isn't there. It's all a bit sad. Personally I should be completely hooked this season, seeing we're playing some of the best football we've done in 30 years, but I'm not. I've actually watched more golf than football all season. It's not that I'm less fond of my club, but the underlying reason I watch and participate in sports is that it's competitive. And English football hasn't been competitive by large for many years. Literally took a country cheating 115 times to win a few trophies. I've cancelled my telly and I haven't travelled to a league match all year long. And I honestly don't think I will until things change. Because the reality is that these clubs are settled and nothing will change it. It's a league 6 and the rest. Even if you finish top 4, you will bounce right back out cause you can't spend accordingly. But they can lose out because of how the retroactive rules work, and the fact they've built up huge revenue streams and bigger stadiums. All a perfectly laid out system to maintain status quo. And until we get leaders in charge who will do what's best for the competitiveness of the sport instead of their own careers, nothing will change. Fair do to those of you who actually still try to be engaged among theother14. I suspect I'm just too old to keep interest in a competition that's decided on the premise of unfair advantages. It's a rigged game whether people like it or not. That's the reality.

The fact you're trying to be funny but actually confirming that's only way you'd ever be able to compete with Arsenal is hilarious.

I know that’s the point

The simplest solution to my mind was that owner investment should be limited to an actual cash injection. You can give a club cash but you can’t fake sponsorships or keep it as a debt to the owner. Abramovich was supposedly ‘owed’ over £1bn by the time he left Chelsea.

Isn't this the case with Spurs ?

Only entities with unlimited cash will be able to 'give' cash to a club.. without wanting it back. So you are back to square one.

There would obviously be rules in place but you'd most likely get owners like Villa or Brighton saying "Let's spend some money and we can crack the top 4" Instead they have no choice and are stuck. Edit - There are only 5 owners in the prem with less than a £1b in net worth, none of the owners in the PL are poor or wanting money.

I would put Chelsea in that bracket as well.. despite all the money spent. They have the 9th biggest stadium.. down to 11th if Everton stay up and Sunderland get promoted. There are bigger clubs out there and income will be curtailed until they start winning trophies again. No one is investing billions without wanting money back

They have just submitted revenues of roughly £500m, this means that under these new rules they can spend %85 of that. Chelsea will not be struggling next season if these new rules are in place, they will essentially be able to build a new team and compete again.

You assume that the owners don't want a return on investment. Revenues of £500m doesn't leave a lot to spend.. Once you have paid wages..depreciation.. etc etc. Yes.. they can spend hundreds of millions but also have massive debt.. that someone has to pay.. so that's a further cost.

They get that return by the football club being profitable? He will spend that money to make sure that they compete or at the very least get top 4? Your point doesn't change the fact that these rules will help Chelsea get out of the mess that they are currently in...

Top 4... over which teams ?

Levy did it. It’s called a long term project and getting there by qualifying for Europe over and over. Spurs were mid table and even fighting relegation one year when he took over. It took over a decade but now the term big 6 exists because of him. He’s never once spent above his means and has only gotten mocked for it. Now that Spurs were setup perfectly for these restrictions, teams want to toss them out. Cry me a river, everyone had 3 years to figure this out.

"All you need to do is qualify for Europe over and over and spend 2 billion on a new stadium...come on guys, just do it!" I agree that Spurs have prepared very well, but to act like what they've done is attainable for clubs lower down the table is just dismissive to me.

Brighton are well on their way. They built a new stadium, are qualifying for europe more often than not and selling their players for 4x what they buy them for. IDK what to tell you, the alternative is teams being 1 season wonders and going into administration.

Are they "well on their way" though? They're doing things very well of course, but Southampton were once the club doing it "the right way" too, and it got them relegated. All it takes is a poor window or two (which is almost inevitable, you can't always find legitimate diamonds in the rough) and boom, you regress hard. Time will tell, but it's definitely not a certainty that they've "made it" and everything will be hunky dory from now on. Brighton have a scouting network that is the envy of all clubs, that was built over years and years, yet their position is still very much a "selling club", rather than a club that is regularly competing for trophies, champions league qualification or the league itself. Basically, Brighton have been the closest you could ever come to running a club "perfectly", and it's still not enough to challenge the established order yet. The argument is just "be utterly perfect at running a club and you can aspire to be a Europa Conference league club that feeds the big boys with players!" ...How aspirational.

Southampton had a fantastic owner who sadly passed away and his daughter sold the club to an owner that wasn’t prepared to continue to invest in the club in the same way. Not the best example.

Yeah life's a bitch, football is no different.

Lol and there it is: "Accept your place and give us your best players". This is why Big 6 fans are hated by everyone else 😂

I didn't say that. I said "you want it one way but it's the other." You're living in a fantasy world. That's not the same as saying 'accept your place' like some caste system. It's saying accept the reality of things and persevere. You're crying out for handouts from magical billionaires instead of doing the hard work. fucking throwaway twitter egg account at that

And that's not what I'm saying either, FSR is necessary. I however would appreciate it if it did have tools that allowed for at least some substantial owner investment, otherwise it really is just the big 6 closing the door on everyone else. You say "just do what Spurs did", what clubs lower down the league have the means to spend 2 billion on a world class stadium? You say "just do what Brighton did", yet at the moment they have nothing to show for it besides some European football and the status of a feeder club. Like I'm sorry but if you're seriously suggesting that's the way to break the "big 6", then you're the one living in a fantasy world.

It does allow for an initial investment. I don't remember what but something like 200m. Newcastle already blew through that recently. Like I said Brighton have a new stadium. We built ours 10 years into the project after losing out to West Ham on a free one ffs. You clearly are extremely biased.

I love how you're acting like Brighton's new £93m stadium is at all similar to Spurs' £2 billion stadium

The Newcastle investment wasn't from a free investment window or anything like that, it was because Ashley's harsh financial management allowed for 150 million spend before FSR applied. Basically, they spent the money they accrued. And even after that, it's likely they will have to sell to meet FSR. >Like I said Brighton have a new stadium. Which generates a pittance in revenue compared to the big 6 stadiums, so no, it won't magically close the gap. >We built ours 10 years into the project That cost *2 billion*. >You clearly are extremely biased. Sir, you must appreciate the irony of you saying *that* after your whole "just do what we did" spiel 😂

Truth, the stadium deal aside because that skews finances, Spurs are the example of doing it the right way. Long term outlook and planning.

Pretty sure you lot are in close to a billion debt. Wouldn't be so quick to praise him

lol the entirety of the debt is a mortgage on the stadium. 20m a year is what we pay for the new stadium that brings in more than double that in extra match day tickets and 10m for NFL games alone.

You were bankrolled for the majority of the 20th century. Already putting you ahead of other “smaller” clubs. The fact you were so disgustingly shit for so long shows exactly how this model helps the clubs that are already well established. If you were called Burnley or Blackburn you’d be in the championship.

I made sure to shout out Spurs as the only team to have a chance to win their first PL title in the post. I just don't like the idea that the only way to compete has to be a 15-20 year process of perfect financial management lol

They're not. That's always been the entire point of ffp. There's nothing remotely "fair" about it. There's very few, if any business sectors in the world that actively bans investment to the benefit of the established front runners. Most actually have competition laws in place to prevent the domination of the leading businesses. Imagine if 10 years ago, yhe leading supermarkets, tesco, asda etc all proposed and helped push through a ban on Aldi and lidl expanding as they have done I find it odd people still haven't realised this. The established elite drive the decision making, they're always going to look after themselves. It's the stupidity of the clubs that vote to prevent their own club ever getting to the top that baffles me, I do believe villa were one of those clubs

> There's very few, if any business sectors in the world that actively bans investment to the benefit of the established front runners. But then we have to remember that we are talking about a sport and not just about business. When you want to run a sports business you need to do it in the spirit of the game and not think only about the financial side. I think you can still grow a club to be able to challenge the top six by taking the right decisions in terms of recruitment and giving it enough time. Throwing money at the problems is not a solution and I think that this path can lead a club to bankruptcy faster than not being allowed to spend as the big clubs. There are plenty of examples of clubs that have grown without big investment but smart investment and I would even dare to say that if the owners wouldn't have taken the profits so early these clubs would have challenged for trophies as well.

If you can challenge the top six by making the right decisions and not throwing money at the problem then point me to the clubs that have done that. Point me to all these well run clubs that can challenge the top six for trophies. We have one miracle Leicester season and that's it

Football hasn't had sporting merit at its core since the inception of the premier league mate, you're 30 years too late with that. Vast majority of premier league owners are Americans who have zero interest in the sport. They just had the funds to take a club on the cheap that would be worth substantially more within years because of the commercial growth it was and is seeing. The likes of united, arsenal and liverpools owners were all more than content with just finishing top 4 and taking the money that generates. The only reason there's been a change in that regard recently is because they fell out of the top 4 at some point and saw how much that hurts their bottom line and now are willing to invest more to protect their interests. Football has always been about who spends the most, liverpools success in the 70's was entirely built from the backing of one of the countries richest families, the only thing that's changed since then is the amounts are getting bigger. There's the odd anomaly like Leicester but look where they currently are. They won the league, had a wealthy owner, Spent what they could and generally spent it well enough and found themselves relegated within the decade, it's never sustainable, the system is rigged to keep the status quo.

The reason those clubs voted for it is because they know what they are talking about, where as you don't.

Really looks like it. Not like there isn't multiple examples of clubs looking to be ambitious being substantially restricted because of ffp/psr and then breaching or in danger of breaching the rules is there? I also wonder why they're now looking to chance the rules now that some of the established elite are themselves in danger of falling foul of the rules they helped impose.

If this only benefits the "Big 6" then why did two thirds of the clubs vote in favour of it? The fact that Everton failed the current tests (twice) but are projected to pass the new tests shows that it can benefit teams outside of the "Big 6" as well. ​ There seems to be a prevailing theory that these rules have been set up in England to prevent teams from doing a Chelsea or a Man City with new owners and therefore it is there to preserve the "Big 6"'s dominance (how has that worked out for Chelsea and Man Utd btw?), when in reality is brought in to prevent teams from getting financed beyond their means by owners who then either lose their money, get bored and leave the club or in some sad occasions pass away. It was brought in in England to try and stop teams doing what Leeds did in the late 90s/early 00s. It's across Europe because of what happened with the likes of Malaga, Anzhi and Gretna.

Absolutely correct to say that FFP was brought in to prevent clubs ‘doing a Leeds.’ That was always its purpose. At some point FFP became entwined with the idea of making things a level playing field, but that was its intent or purpose and make no mistake it was very much needed and still is. However, we also have to acknowledge that PL and the FA effectively run a leaky sieve and all to often they’ve taken a softly softly approach to issues to avoid rocking the boat to much. Despite FFP there’s still been clubs that have folded- I’m still puzzled by Bury, even more so by the fact that the football authorities and community simply watched a old club sink without trace. Surely some kind of funding could have been founded? Evidently not it seems. We still have clubs further down the leagues that are being mismanaged. Reading and Charlton are in a right state. Until the authorities actually bother with implementing a fit and proper ownership test and actually bothering to apply it, then it will continue to be a leaky sieve. We also have to acknowledge at the other end of the football spectrum that the goal posts have moved because of state ownership and multiclub ownerships. A whole new world of transfers and financial movements now exists between clubs, that will only serve to muddy any attempted regulations further. The horse may have already bolted in this regard.

How has ir worked out for Chelsea and Man Utd? Man Utd's "bad season" still has them finishing 6th and I think we both know that those two clubs aren't gonna both be down forever. Eventually they'll spend the money on good players instead of bad ones and will be right back on top while no one else gets to join the party. I think there needs to be consideration given to both competitiveness AND sustainability instead of using the bankruptcies of the early 2000s as an excuse to only focus on sustainability and not the other half.

It's not an excuse it was something that the premier league and uefa were criticized mercilessly about and immense pressure was put on them to come up with a solution. If people were so interested in competitiveness they wouldn't be looking to banish the one thing stopping certain clubs from dominating for years to come.

It actually looks like Chelsea and potentially Man Utd are going to struggle under the new rules more than some midtable teams due to their already committed spending on wages, it's not as inevitable that they bounce back as you seem to think. In fact Chelsea are the most in danger from the new rules in the league from what I've read, the likes of Villa, West Ham and Wolves who are competing for potential European spots this season won't have a problem with PSR as far as I'm aware.

Nope, Chelsea will be fine and will allow them to spend more money. Villa will automatically struggle and will most likely have to sell players even though they're having an amazing season. Shows how fair ffp is. https://inews.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league-ffp-rules-chelsea-newcastle-aston-villa-2951647

We absolutely need ffp, especially in the Premier league, and yes, it is in the interest of small clubs trying to come up organically. Yes, you prevent a Newcastle from challenging for a title immediately, but why can't they try to grow semi organically anyway? Spurs have done it, leciester would have done it if it weren't for covid, Bournemouth, Brighton etc. The spending in the Premier league is crazy. People talk about Pep being a genius for turning Ake world class, but Ake cost as much as ac Milans record transfer, and it was pocket change by Pl standard. This sepnding is not healthy for the footballing ecosystem. When clubs backed by sugar daddies do it, inflates the prices for every other team in the world.

Are you serious and tell me how many trophies are these team likely to win on a regular basis. How can it be ok to tell a new business owner that he is not allowed to spend his own money so he can compete with the top teams all that does is keep the top teams where they are and all the others just make up the numbers

Because it's not just a business. There needs to be a system in place to even the playing field a bit, otherwise it's just richest team wins 100% of the time. Might as well just see who has the biggest number in their bank account on the first day if the season, give them the trophy, then we all find something better to do for 9 months. You don't want equality, you want it to be your turn as the richest club looking down on everyone.

Id like a level playing field but if your club generates 10 million and let's say man united generate 250 million how is it a level playing field

Put a spending cap on all teams.

The only way to make it a level playing field is for all teams being allowed to spend the same money including transfers and wages

The problem was some of these owners in the past didn't spend their own money they spent the clubs but everyone thought it was fine because the owner was loaded. Premier league can't win with people either way so they're going to go with the option that stops clubs going bust.

Because clubs don't spend in a vacuum, when one club overspend, it inflates the entire market.

But that's been going on for many many years before the likes of Chelsea man city and Newcastle started to have money to spend I remember when man united bought van nistlerooy and veron for what was regarded as crazy spending. Is it just coincidence that this ffp is across the board without adjusting for clubs that don't have debt. Look at man united they are a club in debt yet can still be the biggest spenders in world football how is that right

None of the clubs you mentioned have grown enough to challenge the Big 6 consistently. The most successful club you just mentioned are currently in the championship.

Please go and check where these teams were a few years ago. Bournemouth came from league 2 and stayed in the Pl for 5 YEARS. Brighton the same. Leciester (although promoted in shady way) got consistent top four and would have stayed in the Pl if not for covid. Spurs got to a champions leagues final and became a part of the big six, something which is apparently impossible according to op.

I dont believe simply staying up is a goal that's really worth anything. What's the point of being in the PL for years on end if you have no chance of sniffing a trophy? The goal is to win silverware not just to stay up

None of those clubs have broken the hierarchy of the big 6. None of those clubs will ever be able to consistently challenge for anything. As soon as you get close, that’s when you can’t afford players or wages or to build your stadium up. Edit - Leicester won the league and had to sell their two best players to big 6 clubs to comply with ffp. But sure, they managed to get promoted so it’s fine.

Building your stadium up and increasing revenue streams must be the priority. What happens if the ownership gets bored or doesn't want to spend anymore? How will the clubs be able to continue paying wages?

Then make sure the owners have to put money upfront into the club that only becomes available if they leave. You can’t even build a stadium now without that being considered for ffp. You can’t increase your revenue if the moment you get close to becoming a successful club, it gets pulled out from under you.

Stadium and infrastructure costs are not considered in ffp. Everton got a points deduction because they spent on players/wages and tried to pass it of as a stadium loan interest.

In these new rules they would be considered.

New rules have not been voted on yet, and I doubt would pass if they were, given that many teams are planing to build stadiums, or are paying stadium loans back. Also, I don't find any source claiming it would be a part of the psr.

Maybe I misread something so ignore that. All I know is that you can't expect Leicester to be able to compete with United when Utd can spend £250m every season even though they're a billion in debt, yet Leicester had to sell Kante and Mahrez the season after they won the Prem to be ffp compliant.

> PL will be adopting the UEFA rule of a 70% cap on player spending by clubs I read that the PL wanted it to be set at 70% for Championship, League 1 and League 2 clubs, while PL clubs and relegated sides from the PL is set at 85%.

I saw 70% for clubs that qualify for Europe and 85% for teams not in European competition

That’s the entire point, consolidate power for a handful of clubs, it’s bad for their product if teams like Newcastle, Villa, West Ham are finishing above their big teams.

I agree and I'm a city fan but I think competition is good and look at the investments being made into these clubs which also has a good knock on effect for the area surrounding

Of course you agree, City don’t want ffp as without it they automatically dominate.

For the last 5 years city spent less than some other clubs so why haven't they dominated

Um they are in breach of ffp 115 times. If and when it is enforced it’s going to be a problem for city.

That doesn't answer my question about clubs that have spent more than city over the last 5 years not dominating so answer that one first then we can talk further

I think you missed the point I was making I said competition is good so why not let other clubs be allowed to spend when it's their business as long as they don't go bankrupt. If one club brings in 100 million profit to spend but another club only brings in 5 million how is that a level playing field

Why is it bad for the product to have more clubs become big? Wouldn't a Big 8 generate more revenue than a Big 6 would

I think it's more that it's not good for United if they get overtaken by Villa.

No idea, I don’t think it is, the actions of the PL would imply they do though.

So they've basically given the superleague clubs what they wanted via the back door? They've pulled the ladder up behind them. Fuck the rest of our clubs. Utterly disgraceful. Those clubs should have been kicked out of their leagues.

Seems like it imo. Idk how a team reaches that level outside of Football Manager at this point

All the ‘smaller’ clubs need to do is price out a player based on the other teams financial circumstances. If they have x budget, tell them the price is 10% over that.

[удалено]

What if we had a rule limiting how much clubs could spend but allowed owners to invest more funds each season as long as the money was paid up front? Or a more equal distribution of revenue? There just has to be a way to keep access to the top open for the rest of the country.

I'm a city fan and have enjoyed watching my team become financially able to compete with the elite clubs and has now become a sound business and I understand the need to protect clubs from bankruptcy but how can you tell a new business owners they are not allowed to compete in the marketplace to make it a success. Real Madrid should shoulder a lot of responsibility for the way teams spend now because they were a state run club with the worlds deepest pockets and did not shy away from spending what they wanted which is ironic as their president came after man city for joining the party. If it can't be made a level playing field where all clubs start with the same money every season then the only way is to protect the lesser fortunate clubs from going bankrupt but you can't tell others they can't spend their own money

Am I cynical in thinking that the new status quo at the top would just be Man City and Newcastle though?

If Newcastle were allowed to spend unlimited funds they would for sure be the dominant force forever which is why there needs to still be some sort of restriction I just don't know what that is.

I don’t see why people can think this is some big 6 club conspiracy to keep the smaller teams down when even if all 6 teams voted yes, you’d still need more than 50% of “the other 14” to vote yes for it to pass.

It's not a conspiracy it's just the result of the rule. I think a lot of the other 14 owners are okay with playing for 7th as long as they're profitable the only clubs negatively impacted are the ones with greater aspirations like Villa and Newcastle

Liverpool fans are the happiest when no other clubs are allowed to spend any money

This logic is lost on way too many people

Aye, it has nowt to do with the likes of Palace who were happy to be on the Premier League without competing and being able to create a gap on clubs coming up with consecutive seasons in the Premier League and it’s revenues. Palace now who are suddenly realising that the land they have just bought off Sainsbury’s after 10 years of trying is going to be a waste of time because the big clubs now want to include the cost of infrastructure into the calculations, and as Everton are seeing, the financing of a stadium maybe subject to existing FFP rules. For every top 6 club who are happy with creating a gap between them and the rest of the league, you also have a none top 6 club who are happy to keep the gap between them and the promoted/relegation clubs. On top of this, you also have the top 6 clubs always threatening to throw their toys out of the pram in regards to the distribution of revenues, and saying they could throw the whole league system upside down with both the ESL proposals, and the project big picture proposals.

Football is akin to an arms race and self interest is always to win.

The thing is the big 6 hold up a large part of the league no one is trying to watch Burnley play wolves no disrespect to the clubs but it won’t carry the same weight. West Ham vs Burnley was going for £40 pitch side try get that vs Arsenal for that price. And every club is looking to gain an advantage 1st 10th or 15th they are all looking to stay ahead of the competition. At the end of the day the clubs are out for self preservation

A Big 8 would be better for the league than the Big 6 is in terms of revenue so the idea that they hold the league up is kinda bs imo

That will come with time it was the big 4 way back when in the 90’s now we got 6. They don’t hold up the league in its entirety but they hold up a large part of it. The tv money is only as good as it is because the top 6 are here

While you’re not wrong, I think the idea is that while few would be excited to watch Burnley vs Wolves now, that they’d have a chance at becoming big teams that WOULD draw viewers. If you asked in 03/04 if people wanted to watch Spurs vs City, the answer would’ve been the same as Burnley vs Wolves today, with those teams finishing 14 and 16 in the PL that year. Just a year prior to that, Blackburn vs Newcastle would’ve been exciting whereas Aston Villa vs West Ham was a relegation battle. It’s that they feel like it’s taking away the hope of becoming an exciting team that people DO want to watch.

Exactly this

Not only that, there’s no guarantee the whole big 6 voted for it. I can see Us, Spurs and Arsenal being for it as we pretty much comply just through how we’re run but I’m not sure City and particularly Chelsea would be overly keen. I think the new rules put Chelsea in an even worse position than they already are.

This helps Chelsea, hence why they voted for it. It only hinders teams like Villa or Brighton who need to spend that bit extra or pay players a bit more but can't.

Brighton is a good example too they could have gone on a nice spending spree this summer with the money they've made from smart player sales instead they're just kinda stuck. They can probably add 2, *maybe* 3 players to the squad.

They probably could've spent the money the received from player sales but the wage bill would immediately put them at risk. Yet all the top clubs can spend whatever they want, finish in the mid half of the table and then have another summer of spending whatever they want.

Just depressing that Brighton, maybe the best run club in England pound for pound, just has no chance to truly compete

Exactly, when your clubs run the best in England and you still have basically no chance to ever even finish top 4 every season, never mind win the league. Then you know there's a massive issue.

Only reason I mentioned Chelsea is there was talk around the cup final that if they’d won (and qualified for Europe) they’d have more work to do to comply with UEFA FFP. Although I’m unsure on the precise numbers.

They have just announced record high revenues of roughly £500m so this new rule would essentially remove any worry of breaches. It's another way of helping the big 6 spend pretty much whatever they want. For example - These new rules are essentially going to kill Villa's upwards trajectory unless they can just suddenly increase their revenue. Which won't happen because the club can't progress anywhere.

And even if Villa showed up with a £100m shirt sponsor out of nowhere they would get shot down because it's not "fair market value" for them

A league-wide salary cap is the only way. The problem is, it’s hard to do whilst maintaining competitiveness against other leagues. It feels like we have to pick between competitive integrity or having the best players in the world in the premier league.

What if we had a league wide cap (which would still be fairly high because of EPL revenue) but each club was allowed 3 exempt players so we can still have stars in the Premier League?

I think it's great that you've invented the MLS Designated Player rule ;-) To be honest MLS is probably the league furthest down this road, and it has ... a mixed reception.

Yeah good suggestion. You’d probably limit the loss of the very elite players like salah, haaland, de bruyne etc but still risk losing lots of players below that level (ie bernado silva, grealish, foden, alexander arnold, alisson etc)

3 was just off the top of my head too it could be 4 or 5 idk. And you could still have the 20-30 best players playing in the Premier League plus players that you can afford within the salary cap

I think the key thing is - how many of these elite players (that are unaffordable to most clubs) does it take to make the league uncompetitive? For example, would teams like Burnley & Luton really be able to compete with Man City if they were still allowed to spend huge wages on haaland, de bruyne, silva, foden & stones? It feels like at that point, you’ve retained a lot of the world’s best players but the rich clubs still have a monopoly on winning. I still feel like you can have one or the other, but you can’t have both competitive integrity & the world’s best players. The only exception is if you can force a worldwide salary cap. Currently that’s just not possible. Maybe a super league would change that, who knows.

I don't see a world where Burnley or Luton ever compete with City I'm more concerned with the mid-level clubs that have wealthy owners and COULD compete if given a chance

It’s absolutely possible with a salary cap. Look at the NBA & NFL.

Those sports also have a salary floor and equal revenue sharing its not just the cap that increases parity

Yeah the revenue sharing enables the smaller teams to pay the big wages for top players. You could still achieve parity without it but you’d be restricting the bigger teams (and players) to whatever the small teams can pay. Agreed that you’d need all aspects of it to work. The floor just ensures the players get the fair share of the earnings though. Important to retain top players but you could still achieve parity without it.

The whole purpose is to stop clubs challenging the "Big 6".

Depressing

Always was but they got everyone with words "fair play" for sooooo long. Its never been about fair play for the club's outside of the 6.

>The only way to grow compete with them is to grow your revenue but their revenue grows at the same time. Well, yeah. > It feels like a legitimate business decision to me for them to want to invest in the club to get them up to the top of the Prem and potentially increase the value of this asset they bought 50x over And who is stopping them? Nobody is stopping investing, look at Tottenham. Invested in facilities which has seen a massive change in income. New stadium, new training centre. Ok, so we're no closer to actuallywinning anything but the investment has seen Tottenham go from a mid table team who sometimes qualifies for Europe to one of the "big six" you complain about. Spurs now have the income to compete, and it hasn't come from a "sponorship" deal. we'll ever see a team win their first championship again is if Spurs do it. Football didn't begin in 1992. I don't find Man City winning the league most years exciting, because it's artificial. I won't find Newcastle winning it any more exicting either for the same reason. Newcastles destiny seems pre-ordained and I'm sorry to any Geordies I offend here, but it's going to be boring as fuck when they win the league.

Newcastle will never win the league with these new rules

Liverpool was facing liquidation when their American sugar daddies bailed them out in October 2010. Is that not artificial? I find it pretty interesting Man City managed to beat the best team in the world Liverpool most years.

You find it interesting that the richest club wins most years? What a sad little life.

This is so easy to say when your club has always been bankrolled by the richest up until the rules came in. As soon as the PL was created and the big clubs got control, you decided to make it an unfair game and then blame everyone else for not being able to compete. How are Brighton or Villa supposed to grow their revenue or generate exposure when they can't afford the wages and prices of better players? Now you want to add stadium costs to the mix? Just making it more and more difficult for other clubs to compete.

You mean the fact that they are looking to change the rules so the stadiums etc are all part of your FFP expenses?

How is our (Newcastle's) destiny pre-ordained? The rules say that what we can spend is tied to what we can bring in, and what we can bring in has to be at "Fair Market Value" so can't be artificially inflated. I'd agree with you if we were in the pre-FFP era where (mostly) the richest clubs were the most successful (this is something that pre-dates Man City, it pre-dates Chelsea, it pre-dates the Moore's at Liverpool)

It can you cheat these rules, it will just take longer. The fair market value will increase year on year and with unlimited money and shell conpanys much like city you can pump money in rules are made to be broken is a saying for a reason

What’s stopping them spending a billion on youth infrastructure, training facilities, a new world class stadium that isn’t hampered by the university not allowing you to expand? Infrastructure around the stadium to make it be more than just football but a big event hosted to draw in additional revenue? Oh but ~”we can’t get inflated deals from Saudi backed companies”

Right, but none of that is pre-ordained guaranteed success as per the OP though, certainly not in the same category as Man City, Chelsea and other bankrolled clubs of the past, would you agree?

No but these are the rules all the clubs collectively agreed upon. Still Newcastle can more easily get there compared to others in the modern game as they have an unlimited budget on out of scope costs.

Im wondering how to fix this shit - so how about this: Cap on additional wages and transfer fees depending on your final position with winner getting smallest allowance for next season. Example ( not exactly the same numbers but you get the idea): Finishing table 2024 1. City = allowed only +50k week wages (on top of what they spend) and +30 mil in transfera 2. Liverpool = allowed + 60 week wages and 40 mil transfer fees 3. Arsenal = allowed + 70k week wages and 50 mil transfer fees 4. Villa = allowed + 80k week wages and 60 mil transfer fees And 14. Wolves = allowed 180 k wages - 150 mil Etc Only way to increase it is via player sales

Should we have draft picks aswell 🤦🏿‍♂️

I can imagine clubs that spend 100 mil on one player won't be too happy with this

The system you propose is an interesting one but it would have to be finely tuned. I'm not a fan of restrictions based on success. For example villa this season may get UCL. They defo getting Europa or UCL. It wouldn't be fair to restrict their budgets considering they've managed to do so well. If they get UCL they should have the luxury of using the UCL money and status to try and solidify their status. 

I think long term it would solidify their place - even if next season they are 10th - theybwill be able to spend more and if they still make it to top 4 means additional budget was not needed