Financial Fair Play voted in

[St Marco]

Sorry if already mentioned and if it is please delete this thread mods.

 

Not sure if people knew but today was the day the clubs voted on whether they should impliment our own FFP rules like other countries i.e Germany.

 

Result just in is that they agreed to it (had to get at least 14 of the 20 clubs votes)

 

David Gold said the vast majority voted in favour. Think it is pretty safe to assume Citeh and Chelsea were against it.

I imagine we probably voted in favour of it.

 

Sure more details will come out soon

 

http://www.goal.com/en-gb/news/2896/premier-league/2013/02/07/3733876/premier-league-clubs-vote-in-favour-of-new-financial-fair?source=breakingnews&ICID=HP_BN_1

 

Top-flight clubs also approved a salary cap as the league supported the most far-reaching spending reforms since the boom that led to influx of billionaire owners

By Wayne Veysey | Chief Correspondent

 

Premier League clubs have voted in favour of introducing a domestic financial fair play model from next season.

 

West Ham co-owner David Gold has confirmed that proposals to limit a club's losses were approved "overwhelmingly" at a showdown meeting in London on Thursday afternoon.

The top-flight clubs also approved a cap on wage increases as the league supported the most far-reaching spending reforms since the boom that led to an influx of billionaire owners led by Roman Abramovich and Sheikh Mansour.

 

It is not yet known which clubs supported the new measures but 14 of the 20 votes are required to push through reforms.

 

At the last full shareholders' meeting in November, Arsenal, Chelsea, Everton, Liverpool, Manchester United, Newcastle United, Norwich City, QPR, Reading, Southampton, Stoke City, Sunderland, Swansea City, Tottenham, West Ham and Wigan had all indicated that they were in favour of stricter financial regulation.

 

This came after four breakaway clubs – Arsenal, Liverpool, Manchester United and Tottenham – attempted a coup in a bid to push through a strict break-even rule.

The four clubs most likely to oppose the introduction of cost-control measures at the meeting in a London hotel were Aston Villa, Fulham, Manchester City and West Brom.

Insiders say that the Premier League FFP system will be a more "sophisticated" version of Uefa's, which comes into force next season and limits owners to covering losses £38.9 million losses over the first three years.''

Edited 7 February, 2013 by St Marco
added links

[stevegrant]

Led to believe 5 voted against: Chelsea, Man City, Fulham, West Brom and Aston Villa.

 

Realistically it's not going to have that much of an effect, IMO. It's going to allow so much stuff to pass through that it'll actually prove very difficult for clubs to breach the rules.

 

Promoted clubs are likely to not have any restrictions at all so they're not at a competitive disadvantage, and the main focus on the rules will be wage control rather than profit/loss - good news for owners, not necessarily so much for players and agents.

[Saint Charlie]

Why would Villa or WBA vote against?

[stevegrant]

Why would Villa or WBA vote against?

Villa would vote against because Randy Lerner is still propping them up quite considerably. Their wage bill is astronomical, mainly because they've still got a load of rubbish wasters on £50k a week sat rotting in the reserves or limping to the treatment table.

 

West Brom have said they're voting against because they run themselves perfectly well already without the need for regulation - if others don't have the discipline to keep costs under control, that's their problem. It's an admirable stance, although you'd imagine a club of West Brom's size would be in favour of regulation as that good management could be more likely to see them overachieve.

[Saint Charlie]

Villa would vote against because Randy Lerner is still propping them up quite considerably. Their wage bill is astronomical, mainly because they've still got a load of rubbish wasters on £50k a week sat rotting in the reserves or limping to the treatment table.

 

West Brom have said they're voting against because they run themselves perfectly well already without the need for regulation - if others don't have the discipline to keep costs under control, that's their problem. It's an admirable stance, although you'd imagine a club of West Brom's size would be in favour of regulation as that good management could be more likely to see them overachieve.

 

Cheers. Villa are just a mess.

[Baldbarbarian]

Would there be anything in place to stop exploits

e.g. a third party buying a car parking space outside Stamford bridge for £200 million therefore covering losses?.

I welcome the salary cap

[Wade Garrett]

Will encourage clubs to spend more on their infrastructures and grounds. Expanded capacities and more homegrown players coming through will be long term models. Better than having to give some parasite agent a big brown envelope to sign Loic RemyKickaBall, who will just get 'injured' and bleed the club dry.

 

No bad thing.

[Turkish]

A lot of people seem to be getting excited about this as if its in some way good for Saints but all it means is that the biggest clubs with the biggest income will still be able to spend more.

[UpweySaint]

It might also mean ticket prices go up as clubs need to generate more revenue ... Cynical or what!

 

We may not actually benefit from it in the short term but longterm the academy may allow us to compete and it'd be good not to see another club go to the wall.

[Crab Lungs]

A lot of people seem to be getting excited about this as if its in some way good for Saints but all it means is that the biggest clubs with the biggest income will still be able to spend more.

 

Surely even more reason to build a 250,000 seater floating Cortese drome?

[RedAndWhite91]

Chief reporter at the Press Association says that Chelsea voted in favour of it, and the clubs who voted against it were West Brom, Fulham, Villa, Man City, Swansea, and Southampton...

[Saint Charlie]

If we didnt vote in favour I would be suprised because NC always refers to the fact he wants us to be sustainable.

[UpweySaint]

If we didnt vote in favour I would be suprised because NC always refers to the fact he wants us to be sustainable.

 

Hypathetically if we're "sustainable" and others are not the uefa equivalent might mean we get european football at other teams success, five year plan

[dubai_phil]

Chief reporter at the Press Association says that Chelsea voted in favour of it, and the clubs who voted against it were West Brom, Fulham, Villa, Man City, Swansea, and Southampton...

 

I thought that Sky News said it needed 14 votes to be passed? Gold was reacting as if that had happened.

 

Confused. But it's late, I played golf & have been rehydrating all evening

[ChudSaint]

Echo says we voted against..

 

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/sport/saints/news/10214872.Cortese_votes_against_Premier_League_spending_controls/?ref=twt

[Lallana's Left Peg]

I would be surprised if we voted against it. I'd have thought the rules would seem to favour the direction we'd like to head as a club. I would have thought Saints would be in favour of wages coming down in the league considering the following:

- we don't like paying agents fees (and this helps with that)

- I think our wage bill is reasonable for the league (Ramirez aside)

- less incentive for our players to leave elsewhere - especially promising youngsters

- opportunity for more investment in other areas of the club

[RedAndWhite91]

I thought that Sky News said it needed 14 votes to be passed? Gold was reacting as if that had happened.

 

Confused. But it's late, I played golf & have been rehydrating all evening

 

The PA bloke I mentioned tweeted:

 

"The big PL finance vote was incredibly tight - 13 for, 6 against, one abstention (Reading). Just scraped 2/3 majority of votes cast..."

"Premier League clubs who voted against the new finance rules: Fulham, West Brom, Villa, Man City, Swansea, Southampton say sources."

"As revealed yesterday, Chelsea voted in favour...."

"13 out of 19 votes cast... 68%..."

[trousers]

@GraemeBailey: Premier League FFP only just voted in. Reading abstained. Reported that Fulham, WBA, Man City, Villa, Swansea and Southampton voted against

[Thedelldays]

heard saints voted against....

[trousers]

I can see some logic in Cortese voting against these measure as it probably forces other clubs to spend more on their infrastructure and academies...which might start to erode any advantage that Cortese was trying to carve out by us going down this route voluntarily.

[Thedelldays]

I can see some logic in Cortese voting against these measure as it probably forces other clubs to spend more on their infrastructure and academies...which might start to erode any advantage that Cortese was trying to carve by us going down this route voluntarily.

be honest..he just wants to spend money we dont have...like we have been

[stevegrant]

I can see some logic in Cortese voting against these measure as it probably forces other clubs to spend more on their infrastructure and academies...which might start to erode any advantage that Cortese was trying to carve by us going down this route voluntarily.

Or that he's planning on spending a small fortune in the not-too-distant future on the playing staff...

[Thedelldays]

Or that he's planning on spending a small fortune in the not-too-distant future on the playing staff...

should have done so last month...

[aintforever]

I can see some logic in Cortese voting against these measure as it probably forces other clubs to spend more on their infrastructure and academies...which might start to erode any advantage that Cortese was trying to carve out by us going down this route voluntarily.

 

Every club under the sun that can afford to is investing in infastructure, we're not doing anything special.

 

I expect Cortese voted against purely because he doesn't like other people telling him how to run his company.

[CanadaSaint]

be honest..he just wants to spend money we dont have...like we have been

 

More likely money that we do have but that didn't come from traditional sources, don't you think?

 

All lending credence to the notion that Markus's provision might have been very substantial.

[alpine_saint]

More likely money that we do have but that didn't come from traditional sources, don't you think?

 

All lending credence to the notion that Markus's provision might have been very substantial.

 

Yeah, but its not going to do us a lot of good now, is it ? Maybe this is why stadium expansion is being talked up at the moment.

[Thedelldays]

Yeah, but its not going to do us a lot of good now, is it ?

it is alpine.....there will be little change for saints

[alpine_saint]

it is alpine.....there will be little change for saints

 

You reckon ? It sounds like we wont be able to dip into Markus's fund any more.

[aintforever]

You reckon ? It sounds like we wont be able to dip into Markus's fund any more.

 

what fund is that, I thought we've got a loan out?

[Thedelldays]

You reckon ? It sounds like we wont be able to dip into Markus's fund any more.

read the other thread..

 

basically, any club is allowed to make up to a £105m loss in any 3 year period.

so, in 1 season..you will get what...at least £60m in TV money...plus you can effectively make an extra £35m loss too.....that is almost £100m spend in a single season......without taking into account any other money revenues....gate receipts, sponsors etc etc

ALL money from comercial streams can be included...

 

Even if you go over the £105m loss in the 3 season period...the Clubs owner will have to underwrite the loss or you will get a points deductions..

 

 

so, when we get to the champions league and sign a deal with singapore airlines for £500m...we will be laughing..

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2013/feb/07/premier-league-spending-controls?CMP=twt_gu

Edited 7 February, 2013 by Thedelldays

[CanadaSaint]

I wasn't expecting us to vote against it because of all the self-sustaining stuff that Cortese has emphasized, and the way he's "put his money where his mouth is" on the academy front.

 

As a football fan, I was happy to see all of that, but sceptical about how realistic it really is.

 

As a Saints fan, I can't help but wonder - after hearing that we've voted No - if there isn't a sh*t-load of dough back there somewhere.

[alpine_saint]

I wasn't expecting us to vote against it because of all the self-sustaining stuff that Cortese has emphasized, and the way he's "put his money where his mouth is" on the academy front.

 

As a football fan, I was happy to see all of that, but sceptical about how realistic it really is.

 

As a Saints fan, I can't help but wonder - after hearing that we've voted No - if there isn't a sh*t-load of dough back there somewhere.

 

I share your suspicion. For me, if there is a pot left behind by Markus, it doesnt count as a "commercial stream", and NC has this in mind too. All this wind and p*ss about the loan is an irrelevancy, imo. We took that loan out for some sort of short-term cash-flow or tax reason, I suspect. NC is a Swiss banker, FFS. He will know all the moves..

[sotonist]

basically, any club is allowed to make up to a £105m loss in any 3 year period.

so, in 1 season..you will get what...at least £60m in TV money...plus you can effectively make an extra £35m loss too.....that is almost £100m spend in a single season......without taking into account any other money revenues....gate receipts, sponsors etc etc

 

Yep that's going to stop clubs falling to little pieces after getting relegated and losing the biggest revenue stream.

 

Should have just ruled on player contracts mandating that they be heavily cut on relegation. Dont' allow any QPRs offering guaranteed money.

[CanadaSaint]

I share your suspicion. For me, if there is a pot left behind by Markus, it doesnt count as a "commercial stream", and NC has this in mind too. All this wind and p*ss about the loan is an irrelevancy, imo. We took that loan out for some sort of short-term cash-flow or tax reason, I suspect. NC is a Swiss banker, FFS. He will know all the moves..

 

Indeed.

 

And I'm hoping that he's smart enough to have a Plan B for a situation in which he can keep the dream alive despite the fact that the financial rules may well have rendered Markus's provision less usable than it would have been under current conditions. Cortese's as smart as hell so I'd be shocked if he doesn't have a Plan B, but God only knows what it might be.

 

I guess there's always the chance that he'll report back that the mission is now unattainable, and we'll start seeing "For Sale" talk again.

[stevegrant]

Yep that's going to stop clubs falling to little pieces after getting relegated and losing the biggest revenue stream.

 

Should have just ruled on player contracts mandating that they be heavily cut on relegation. Dont' allow any QPRs offering guaranteed money.

While these automatic reduction on relegation clauses are generally a good idea, I'm not entirely sure it would be legal for the Premier League or FA to make it compulsory to force a player into taking a pay cut.

[sotonist]

While these automatic reduction on relegation clauses are generally a good idea, I'm not entirely sure it would be legal for the Premier League or FA to make it compulsory to force a player into taking a pay cut.

 

Don't force the player then. Just make players contracted outside the rule ineligible to play.

[sotonist]

ANd of course you can't apply it retrospectively, but you could phase it in by allowing only x players in a matchday squad to break the rule.

[Saint Fan CaM]

I wonder if the PL move is being made to steal a march on the UEFA rules? Perhaps they suit our purpose more?

[Saint Martini]

While these automatic reduction on relegation clauses are generally a good idea, I'm not entirely sure it would be legal for the Premier League or FA to make it compulsory to force a player into taking a pay cut.

 

You can't implement the rule for current contracts but what is to stop the PL from make it illegal to hand out contracts that don't have that clause? The player has the choice to either accept the clause or choose to sign somewhere else.

[hypochondriac]

If they all did that clause though then as soon as someone got relegated every player would jump ship and the club would implode. Even worse than now...

[Saint Martini]

If they all did that clause though then as soon as someone got relegated every player would jump ship and the club would implode. Even worse than now...

 

Some players will want to jump ship but they have valid contracts and considering these players just got relegated I can imagine that there won't be that much interest for all players, but certainly for some. The relegated club can get a decent value for the players because they can afford to keep them.

[hypochondriac]

That is suggesting that all the power lies with the clubs. We know that is not the case...

[tajjuk]

The key here is this, ignore the £105 million that is pretty irrelevant.

 

Clubs whose total wage bill is more than £52m will only be allowed to increase their salaries by an accumulative £4m per season for each of the next three years (2013-14: £4m, 2014-15: £8m, 2015-16: £12m).

 

Now to put that into perspective, wage bills from 2010-11 -

 

TOP PREMIER LEAGUE WAGE BILLS 2010-11

Chelsea - £191m (up from £174m in 2009-10)

Manchester City - £174m (£133m)

Manchester United - £153m (£132m)

Liverpool - £135m (£121m)

Arsenal - £124m (£111m)

 

So all those clubs spend over £52 million a year. This means they can't add more than about £76k a week wages to their wage bill.

 

But then neither can a club spending around £52 million a year. Everton for example have a wage bill of £54 million a year from last year, so under the rules they can only increase this to £58 million a year.

 

So providing for example Arsenal can sustain their £124 million a year wage bill without making more than a £35 million a year loss they don't need to reduce it.

 

It means they can essentially offer £70 million a year in wages more than Everton will be ALLOWED to.

 

So Arsenal can continue to offer players £100k a week if they get rid of one or two of their higher earners to make room, but Everton even if they got an increase in turnover wouldn't be allowed to add two players on £50k a week without making space in their wage bill.

 

Essentially Everton could have 20 players on £50k a week. Arsenal could have 20 players on £120k a week and in no way can Everton close the gap.

 

Closed shop is successfully created.

[Sour Mash]

The key here is this, ignore the £105 million that is pretty irrelevant.

 

 

 

Now to put that into perspective, wage bills from 2010-11 -

 

TOP PREMIER LEAGUE WAGE BILLS 2010-11

 

 

So all those clubs spend over £52 million a year. This means they can't add more than about £76k a week wages to their wage bill.

 

But then neither can a club spending around £52 million a year. Everton for example have a wage bill of £54 million a year from last year, so under the rules they can only increase this to £58 million a year.

 

So providing for example Arsenal can sustain their £124 million a year wage bill without making more than a £35 million a year loss they don't need to reduce it.

 

It means they can essentially offer £70 million a year in wages more than Everton will be ALLOWED to.

 

So Arsenal can continue to offer players £100k a week if they get rid of one or two of their higher earners to make room, but Everton even if they got an increase in turnover wouldn't be allowed to add two players on £50k a week without making space in their wage bill.

 

Essentially Everton could have 20 players on £50k a week. Arsenal could have 20 players on £120k a week and in no way can Everton close the gap.

 

Closed shop is successfully created.

Good analysis. As I've always said, these FFP ideas are more about maintaining the status quo than anything else. Edited 8 February, 2013 by Sour Mash

[brmbrm]

.............NC is a Swiss banker, FFS. He will know all the moves..

 

Deja vu! "They're Dutch, FFS. They know all about total football"

 

(Sorry if you had sarcasm - just a gut reaction)

[tajjuk]

Even if we manage to build are super 48k stadium, fill it, and increase our revenue stream somehow.

 

We'd still only be allowed by these rules to add a 'Gaston' a year and no more without selling. (not sure getting the likes of Richardson, Chaplow etc. off the wage bill will help.

[Thedelldays]

Even if we manage to build are super 48k stadium, fill it, and increase our revenue stream somehow.

 

We'd still only be allowed by these rules to add a 'Gaston' a year and no more without selling. (not sure getting the likes of Richardson, Chaplow etc. off the wage bill will help.

 

Irrelevant anyway as our failure to win games will send us down

[Saint Garrett]

Got to say I'm surprised a 'relegation wage clause' isn't a compulsory thing. If it was added into a contract along with a 'relegation release clause' then surely the player would be happy enough to sign it?

[ant]

Surely won't take long to circumvent this ruling. As a simplified model, couldn't a club just find a creative way to sell something to itself or its rich benefactor in order to increase revenue?

[tajjuk]

Even if we manage to build are super 48k stadium, fill it, and increase our revenue stream somehow.

 

We'd still only be allowed by these rules to add a 'Gaston' a year and no more without selling. (not sure getting the likes of Richardson, Chaplow etc. off the wage bill will help.

 

 

Was wrong on this as it seems to apply just to TV revenues being spent, so it seems to be in line with the TV money going up not going straight to players wages. So off-field revenue streams can increase wages spending I think.