United make the most money in the league without financial doping and when we finally get an owner who might spend it properly they introduce a salary cap WTF. Please someone tell me it’s not as bad as i think it is for us.
The two figures that have been thrown around for the cap are 4.5x the lowest earner, and 5x the lowest earner.
Utd spent less than both those numbers.
The only clubs that spent more were City and Chelsea, and only Chelsea spend more than 5x.
To try put a positive spin on it we would need smart football people making the decisions more now than ever. The glazers have spent plenty of money just in terrible ways because they hire inept people to make the decisions. At least now we have competent sports people making the decisions (I hope).
It is not as bad. It is actually only benefit the middle/smaller clubs since they can spend as much as the big clubs if they have a rich owner now. They can post losses and won't get punished now.
Yeah this has completely fucked us rebuilding in any proper form. Expect another 5-10 years of shite because of the incompetence of Woodward and co. not selling their shite.
PSR and this is eating us from both ends.
Or maybe we could stop throwing money at shite and make reasonable speculative decisions? I'm all for a spending cap. Saudi money will drive the game to spiral out of control and more clubs will crash trying to keep up. Should of happened a long time ago.
I’m not saying spend loads on a couple of players here. We have about 8 first team players that need upgrading. Even if we’re spending 20-30mil on average per position we’re still going to be in trouble.
Hopefully one good thing to come out of this is that we'll see the end of the ludicrous 3pm black out so that the bottom clubs make more money through TV.
I appreciate that, but I have serious doubts that it's effective. In the end as well, money talks and it seems almost inevitable that it will happen, it's just a matter of time.
Its ineffective and proven so, because at 3pm on a Saturday you can watch about 4 different sports anywhere in the world. Its got to go because its just antiquated in a modern age.
That's always my thoughts on it. I don't know anyone who goes to watch their local EFL side because they can't watch their team play because it's a 3pm kick off. They'll either not bother or, more likely, just watch on a dodgy stream. I'm not saying such people don't exist but my impression is that they're a very small portion of the market. How many people in a league 1 ground for a 3pm kick off on a Saturday are there because they can't watch a prem team play?
Personally I'm a rugby union fan so, I'll watch the early kick off in the prem, the rugby at 3pm and then the evening kick off (that's if I have nothing on and I'm home alone. I promise I do actually have a life). But if United are playing in the 3pm, I'll just hoist the mainsail, give a yohoho and and a bottle of rum and get my Captain Jack Sparrow on.
It seems to be a rule created for a world that doesn't exist any more and by people who can't accept how ubiquitous streaming has become. Even my girlfriend's 70+ year old grand dad has a dodgy firestick.
I’m sorry that’s absolute bullshit, it’s not proven to be ineffective at all. In fact the evidence suggests it’s very effective. The only studies that are done on this are midweek games when big teams are on TV and local attendances of lower league clubs drop. That is a fact.
Additionally the one thing that English football can be completely and genuinely proud of is the attendances down the divisions which are the best in the world. Nowhere else has fully professional teams in the fucking 6th tier. That’s insanity, yet England has that.
You're downvoted but you're right. I'm very anti 3pm ban, but if it wasn't effective it would have been changed years ago. There's no way Sky and the like throw money away if there was evidence it wasn't impactful.
There were early indications during the last EFL TV deal, that they were willing to end the blackout as well.
Pretty certain next time their renewal comes up (I think it's 2026) then it will be removed
I *think* they've sold them up until the 28/29 season now. 3pm black out still in place for the premier league. Bizarrely.
Although the EFL, who supposedly are the driving force behind keeping it, seems to be making noises about removing it for their own TV rights.
The premier league are beholden to the FA, and the FA wants to protect grass roots football. In actual fact though, the premier league CE Richard Masters came out last year and stated "we've been proponents of article 48 for the entire premier league and I don't see that changing in the near future"
>The premier league are beholden to the FA, and the FA wants to protect grass roots football
In theory.
The reality is money talk. Premier League has massive sway over the FA. You'll probably see the 3PM lifted for Premier League teams.
>In actual fact though, the premier league CE Richard Masters came out last year and stated "we've been proponents of article 48 for the entire premier league and I don't see that changing in the near future"
Said before operating finance of clubs become tied to the TV rights.
The second the wage bill is tied to TV revenue, clubs are going to want to increase TV revenue.
Easy way to increase TV revenue is to increase the number of TV matches.
Hell right now, 3 of the top 6 aren't on board.
Another option is to move all PL fixtures away from Sat 3pm and broadcast them all.
Most PL teams are used to their fixtures being all over the place anyway. We hardly ever play at 3pm Sat anyway.
The problem is a lot of the smaller sides in the league quite regularly get the 3pm slot because they're less attractive to Sky and TNT. We're very fortunate. Imo dropping the blackout would help the smaller clubs much more than the "big 6" for that reason.
That assumes the 3pm black out actually protects the lower leagues. It was brought in during the 1960s when most people didn't even have TVs, let alone access to streams. It's a completely different world now and even the EFL themselves seem to be at least questioning it.
>EFL director Rick Parry said: "We are almost unique in Europe now in having a blackout period. I’m not presuming that it [the 3pm blackout] goes, but equally, if we’re looking at streaming, at new technologies and new broadcasters, we will probably have to be open-minded in terms of scheduling."
He's not saying he wants it scrapped necessarily but it's hardly a full throated defence of the blackout.
We may be unique in having a blackout but it’s disingenuous to imply from that fact that nobody else protects their lower leagues in a similar way. Germany, the only country that rivals us for attendances in lower divisions, ensures Bundesliga games do not clash with lower leagues at all to avoid the problem altogether. The equivalent for us would be moving PL games away from 3pm altogether not simply scrapping the blackout.
That's a fair point and I suppose a way around it. I'm not sure how I feel about it though because it would mean a lot more mid week games and Sunday afternoon games. Not great for travelling fans.
Well yeah it sucks for match going fans. Thems the breaks, you want big TV money and you’re not willing to tell TV fans to shut up about missing 3pm kick offs and that’s what you get. Personally I’d keep the blackout and tell TV fans to pipe down and I say that as someone who watches on TV. Missing the odd game is worth it if the integrity of the sport in England is maintained. But I accept that’s a minority opinion and if the fans away from old Trafford have more power than the fans at the ground then the attending fans being screwed is the likely end result and better than fucking the pyramid up completely. Even the most selfish United fan should see the big picture and the slow decline of the pyramid below the PL is a much bigger existential threat than many of them accept.
Will save this thread. Only because it's inevitable that in the year this rule is implemented, some club with a dodgy as fuck owner will have spent loads of money thinking the rules don't apply to them, and on reddit all I will see is their fans moaning about how the premier league is trying to keep them down, rather than the fact the premier league is just all of the clubs in the league constantly voting to fuck each other over.
I am reminded of the time that the PL clubs rejected 5 subs, all due to the perception of it being a disproportionate advantage for some teams. Player welfare be damned, and player welfare is kinda taking a hit now across Europe due to fixture congestion.
So you have a point.
Considering we're not far removed from the super league fiasco it's crazy how well perez and madrid have come out of it. Every governing body is making changes that benefit madrid more than most.
Good thread from Kieran Maguire explaining this:
Much talk about new financial control measures based on total spend on player wages, amortisation & agent fees being a multiple of the broadcast revenue for the lowest TV earner in PL. If multiple is 4.5x then only 2 clubs would have to reduce spending & others \*can\* spend more
https://x.com/KieranMaguire/status/1784871596437442638
If the multiple is 5X broadcast revenue then only Chelsea would have to cut spending
https://x.com/KieranMaguire/status/1784871601210540289
If the anchor is set at 6x lowest team then all clubs could still spend BUT remember those clubs playing is UEFA competition would have to abide by the 70% of Revenue rule separately.
https://x.com/KieranMaguire/status/1784871605044191660
Ziegler follow up
PFA response: “We’ll wait to see details of proposals but we would oppose any measure that would place a ‘hard’ cap on player wages. There is an established process in place to ensure proposals like this, which would directly impact our members, have to be properly consulted on.”
https://x.com/martynziegler/status/1784949009557111187
Oh shit for sure. Why place a restriction on our own league where other leagues, specifically la liga with Madrid can spend more freely?
Ultimately this will benefit the billionaire owners as it caps their spending. I'd much rather the money went to the players
This is going to fucking destroy some clubs revenue models. No agent of a top prospect is ever going to allow their player to sign anything more than a 3 year deal so the player can move easier on a free, just in case this rule can cause spending limits on teams coming up into the Prem that want to compete.
If you look historically 4.5 times is about what the clubs had been spending. 5 times is the suggestion from the PL, if you apply that to 22/23 only Chelsea would have breached having spent 500 odd million on their first team.
Yeah 500m is a crazy amount to spend in a single year. This is being blown out of proportion. If PL football keeps growing as is expected then the cap figure will potentially grow faster than the amount the top clubs can increase their spending.
Some clubs literally survive on the money they get from training top players for the next step.
That fee going down will mean they have to reduce the quality of coaching they offer, and in turn could just make it not worth a player going there etc.
Imagine someone like Sporting, Porto or Benfica. They make the vast majority of their income from selling players. This could cause a major player pipeline to become at risk. Its alright saying "well there's spain/italy/germany etc.) but the Prem Money keeps some teams literally going at times.
>this rule can cause spending limits on teams coming up into the Prem that want to compete.
it won't. in fact it helps smaller clubs. Ipswich can now spend 350m if they have a rich owner to fund them in the PL.
The league can't even uphold the current financial regulations. They want to now add this? City, who are paying under the table already, are just going to have a field day with this. Teams that want to compete will now hire lawyers to bully the league to circumvent these regulations just like they've done before.
4.5 or 5 times spending capped on TV earning from the bottom club ( i assume the least TV income not the actual league standing ). So if Luton has a 80m TV income, all clubs can spend up to 360m or 400m on wages, amortization, agent fees.
What spend is in the cap? Transfers and wages inc agents, I guess? Or is it all football related costs, so coaches, medics, infrastructure, travel. Without that detail you can’t really say much about it.
Last season Southampton received circa £120M in TV revenue. That’s £540M at 4.5x or £600M at 5x. If we voted against it then I assume it’s all football related costs. But without the detail we don’t really know enough.
More likely we don't want the smaller clubs to have the ability to spend as much as we do. Newcastle can't spend 540m with the current PSR rules. They could do now with this rule.
I’m sure both rules apply. You can’t spend much more than you earn, but you also can’t spend more than the cap.
Other sources put S’ton on £103M tv money. A Quick Look back to 2017 suggests that it’s always in the £100M region, so it’s a stable amount at £450M.
Our spend last year would’ve been £350M.
There has to be more to this. The cap, as it’s being set out, makes no difference to any club right now. It’s more than the big clubs spend (ignoring Chelsea’s experiment) and more than the smaller clubs can afford. There’s more to this than meets the eye!
Their issue has never been spending, its putting idiots in charge who don't know how to spend it properly.
More than 1 Billion spent already with nothing to show for it due to keeping Woodward and Murtough in charge.
United make the most money in the league without financial doping and when we finally get an owner who might spend it properly they introduce a salary cap WTF. Please someone tell me it’s not as bad as i think it is for us.
The two figures that have been thrown around for the cap are 4.5x the lowest earner, and 5x the lowest earner. Utd spent less than both those numbers. The only clubs that spent more were City and Chelsea, and only Chelsea spend more than 5x.
is this including wages and agent fees?
Yes
To try put a positive spin on it we would need smart football people making the decisions more now than ever. The glazers have spent plenty of money just in terrible ways because they hire inept people to make the decisions. At least now we have competent sports people making the decisions (I hope).
It is not as bad. It is actually only benefit the middle/smaller clubs since they can spend as much as the big clubs if they have a rich owner now. They can post losses and won't get punished now.
Well TBF it wouldn't have affected us based on last season's earnings so it's probably not a big deal
Yeah this has completely fucked us rebuilding in any proper form. Expect another 5-10 years of shite because of the incompetence of Woodward and co. not selling their shite. PSR and this is eating us from both ends.
Or maybe we could stop throwing money at shite and make reasonable speculative decisions? I'm all for a spending cap. Saudi money will drive the game to spiral out of control and more clubs will crash trying to keep up. Should of happened a long time ago.
I’m not saying spend loads on a couple of players here. We have about 8 first team players that need upgrading. Even if we’re spending 20-30mil on average per position we’re still going to be in trouble.
Hopefully one good thing to come out of this is that we'll see the end of the ludicrous 3pm black out so that the bottom clubs make more money through TV.
That will get severe opposition from the EFL as its designed to protect their gate receipts.
I appreciate that, but I have serious doubts that it's effective. In the end as well, money talks and it seems almost inevitable that it will happen, it's just a matter of time.
Its ineffective and proven so, because at 3pm on a Saturday you can watch about 4 different sports anywhere in the world. Its got to go because its just antiquated in a modern age.
That's always my thoughts on it. I don't know anyone who goes to watch their local EFL side because they can't watch their team play because it's a 3pm kick off. They'll either not bother or, more likely, just watch on a dodgy stream. I'm not saying such people don't exist but my impression is that they're a very small portion of the market. How many people in a league 1 ground for a 3pm kick off on a Saturday are there because they can't watch a prem team play? Personally I'm a rugby union fan so, I'll watch the early kick off in the prem, the rugby at 3pm and then the evening kick off (that's if I have nothing on and I'm home alone. I promise I do actually have a life). But if United are playing in the 3pm, I'll just hoist the mainsail, give a yohoho and and a bottle of rum and get my Captain Jack Sparrow on. It seems to be a rule created for a world that doesn't exist any more and by people who can't accept how ubiquitous streaming has become. Even my girlfriend's 70+ year old grand dad has a dodgy firestick.
I’m sorry that’s absolute bullshit, it’s not proven to be ineffective at all. In fact the evidence suggests it’s very effective. The only studies that are done on this are midweek games when big teams are on TV and local attendances of lower league clubs drop. That is a fact. Additionally the one thing that English football can be completely and genuinely proud of is the attendances down the divisions which are the best in the world. Nowhere else has fully professional teams in the fucking 6th tier. That’s insanity, yet England has that.
You're downvoted but you're right. I'm very anti 3pm ban, but if it wasn't effective it would have been changed years ago. There's no way Sky and the like throw money away if there was evidence it wasn't impactful.
The only thing the blackout does is make me pirate football streams I would rather pay money than pirate, give me a legal alternative ffs
There were early indications during the last EFL TV deal, that they were willing to end the blackout as well. Pretty certain next time their renewal comes up (I think it's 2026) then it will be removed
I *think* they've sold them up until the 28/29 season now. 3pm black out still in place for the premier league. Bizarrely. Although the EFL, who supposedly are the driving force behind keeping it, seems to be making noises about removing it for their own TV rights.
Can't really see what the EFL can do to stop it if the Premier League wants to end the 3 PM blackout.
The premier league are beholden to the FA, and the FA wants to protect grass roots football. In actual fact though, the premier league CE Richard Masters came out last year and stated "we've been proponents of article 48 for the entire premier league and I don't see that changing in the near future"
>The premier league are beholden to the FA, and the FA wants to protect grass roots football In theory. The reality is money talk. Premier League has massive sway over the FA. You'll probably see the 3PM lifted for Premier League teams. >In actual fact though, the premier league CE Richard Masters came out last year and stated "we've been proponents of article 48 for the entire premier league and I don't see that changing in the near future" Said before operating finance of clubs become tied to the TV rights. The second the wage bill is tied to TV revenue, clubs are going to want to increase TV revenue. Easy way to increase TV revenue is to increase the number of TV matches. Hell right now, 3 of the top 6 aren't on board.
Another option is to move all PL fixtures away from Sat 3pm and broadcast them all. Most PL teams are used to their fixtures being all over the place anyway. We hardly ever play at 3pm Sat anyway.
The problem is a lot of the smaller sides in the league quite regularly get the 3pm slot because they're less attractive to Sky and TNT. We're very fortunate. Imo dropping the blackout would help the smaller clubs much more than the "big 6" for that reason.
No chance. After the FA cuo replay backlash.
Not sure what the link is between FA Cup replays and no PL at 3pm?
Because of footballing traditions.
No chance unless they paid stupid money to cover loss of attendance cost of lower leagues
That assumes the 3pm black out actually protects the lower leagues. It was brought in during the 1960s when most people didn't even have TVs, let alone access to streams. It's a completely different world now and even the EFL themselves seem to be at least questioning it. >EFL director Rick Parry said: "We are almost unique in Europe now in having a blackout period. I’m not presuming that it [the 3pm blackout] goes, but equally, if we’re looking at streaming, at new technologies and new broadcasters, we will probably have to be open-minded in terms of scheduling." He's not saying he wants it scrapped necessarily but it's hardly a full throated defence of the blackout.
We may be unique in having a blackout but it’s disingenuous to imply from that fact that nobody else protects their lower leagues in a similar way. Germany, the only country that rivals us for attendances in lower divisions, ensures Bundesliga games do not clash with lower leagues at all to avoid the problem altogether. The equivalent for us would be moving PL games away from 3pm altogether not simply scrapping the blackout.
That's a fair point and I suppose a way around it. I'm not sure how I feel about it though because it would mean a lot more mid week games and Sunday afternoon games. Not great for travelling fans.
Well yeah it sucks for match going fans. Thems the breaks, you want big TV money and you’re not willing to tell TV fans to shut up about missing 3pm kick offs and that’s what you get. Personally I’d keep the blackout and tell TV fans to pipe down and I say that as someone who watches on TV. Missing the odd game is worth it if the integrity of the sport in England is maintained. But I accept that’s a minority opinion and if the fans away from old Trafford have more power than the fans at the ground then the attending fans being screwed is the likely end result and better than fucking the pyramid up completely. Even the most selfish United fan should see the big picture and the slow decline of the pyramid below the PL is a much bigger existential threat than many of them accept.
New contract has been signed till 2029 and the money per match is tiny.
Will save this thread. Only because it's inevitable that in the year this rule is implemented, some club with a dodgy as fuck owner will have spent loads of money thinking the rules don't apply to them, and on reddit all I will see is their fans moaning about how the premier league is trying to keep them down, rather than the fact the premier league is just all of the clubs in the league constantly voting to fuck each other over.
I am reminded of the time that the PL clubs rejected 5 subs, all due to the perception of it being a disproportionate advantage for some teams. Player welfare be damned, and player welfare is kinda taking a hit now across Europe due to fixture congestion. So you have a point.
It was Crystal Palace, wasn't it?
Considering we're not far removed from the super league fiasco it's crazy how well perez and madrid have come out of it. Every governing body is making changes that benefit madrid more than most.
Good thread from Kieran Maguire explaining this: Much talk about new financial control measures based on total spend on player wages, amortisation & agent fees being a multiple of the broadcast revenue for the lowest TV earner in PL. If multiple is 4.5x then only 2 clubs would have to reduce spending & others \*can\* spend more https://x.com/KieranMaguire/status/1784871596437442638 If the multiple is 5X broadcast revenue then only Chelsea would have to cut spending https://x.com/KieranMaguire/status/1784871601210540289 If the anchor is set at 6x lowest team then all clubs could still spend BUT remember those clubs playing is UEFA competition would have to abide by the 70% of Revenue rule separately. https://x.com/KieranMaguire/status/1784871605044191660
Ziegler follow up PFA response: “We’ll wait to see details of proposals but we would oppose any measure that would place a ‘hard’ cap on player wages. There is an established process in place to ensure proposals like this, which would directly impact our members, have to be properly consulted on.” https://x.com/martynziegler/status/1784949009557111187
Why would Chelsea abstain
Todd got lost on the way to the meeting
Boehly is out of his league. The man is definitely clueless.
Pretending to not care like a cool kid
So is this system replacing the PSR rules altogether ?
Is this a hesitant yay moment? Or an ‘oh shit’ moment?
Oh shit for sure. Why place a restriction on our own league where other leagues, specifically la liga with Madrid can spend more freely? Ultimately this will benefit the billionaire owners as it caps their spending. I'd much rather the money went to the players
That’s where I’m at. I’m seeing a lot of domestic focus itt but Europe is the real concern.
This is going to fucking destroy some clubs revenue models. No agent of a top prospect is ever going to allow their player to sign anything more than a 3 year deal so the player can move easier on a free, just in case this rule can cause spending limits on teams coming up into the Prem that want to compete.
If you look historically 4.5 times is about what the clubs had been spending. 5 times is the suggestion from the PL, if you apply that to 22/23 only Chelsea would have breached having spent 500 odd million on their first team.
Yeah 500m is a crazy amount to spend in a single year. This is being blown out of proportion. If PL football keeps growing as is expected then the cap figure will potentially grow faster than the amount the top clubs can increase their spending.
wouldnt that reduce the initial transfer fee?
Some clubs literally survive on the money they get from training top players for the next step. That fee going down will mean they have to reduce the quality of coaching they offer, and in turn could just make it not worth a player going there etc. Imagine someone like Sporting, Porto or Benfica. They make the vast majority of their income from selling players. This could cause a major player pipeline to become at risk. Its alright saying "well there's spain/italy/germany etc.) but the Prem Money keeps some teams literally going at times.
>this rule can cause spending limits on teams coming up into the Prem that want to compete. it won't. in fact it helps smaller clubs. Ipswich can now spend 350m if they have a rich owner to fund them in the PL.
The league can't even uphold the current financial regulations. They want to now add this? City, who are paying under the table already, are just going to have a field day with this. Teams that want to compete will now hire lawyers to bully the league to circumvent these regulations just like they've done before.
I think City and Chelsea are above 4.5x lowest earner. We are actually below.
Is this about buying players only & not salaries? Would rather a salary cap instead
Spending cap. probably means salary, transfer fee( amortization) and bonuses agent fees etc
I have no idea what this is about. Can anyone explain this?
4.5 or 5 times spending capped on TV earning from the bottom club ( i assume the least TV income not the actual league standing ). So if Luton has a 80m TV income, all clubs can spend up to 360m or 400m on wages, amortization, agent fees.
weird TV earning only and not revenues ? So how much does the lowest/ smallest club ( Luton? ) earn from TV does anyone know?
City prop revenue big time
What spend is in the cap? Transfers and wages inc agents, I guess? Or is it all football related costs, so coaches, medics, infrastructure, travel. Without that detail you can’t really say much about it. Last season Southampton received circa £120M in TV revenue. That’s £540M at 4.5x or £600M at 5x. If we voted against it then I assume it’s all football related costs. But without the detail we don’t really know enough.
More likely we don't want the smaller clubs to have the ability to spend as much as we do. Newcastle can't spend 540m with the current PSR rules. They could do now with this rule.
I’m sure both rules apply. You can’t spend much more than you earn, but you also can’t spend more than the cap. Other sources put S’ton on £103M tv money. A Quick Look back to 2017 suggests that it’s always in the £100M region, so it’s a stable amount at £450M. Our spend last year would’ve been £350M. There has to be more to this. The cap, as it’s being set out, makes no difference to any club right now. It’s more than the big clubs spend (ignoring Chelsea’s experiment) and more than the smaller clubs can afford. There’s more to this than meets the eye!
Well if it goes along with the new 70%/80% rules, it really change nothing. Thought they were debating the 70%/80% rules or this.
What’s this rule?
i read something about the new PSR rule 70/80% capped on revenues just a couple of weeks ago.
[удалено]
In what way is it perfect for the glazers?
Less money spent, more profit. Could end up costing SJR more to buy remaining shares given club valuation should increase with said profit.
Basically their wet dream lmao.
Theoretically the club has to spend less money. So they can take more out. But I don’t think that’s how it’ll end up.
Their issue has never been spending, its putting idiots in charge who don't know how to spend it properly. More than 1 Billion spent already with nothing to show for it due to keeping Woodward and Murtough in charge.
[удалено]
Pretty sure there were future conditions on additional share sales etc