Financial Fair Play voted in

[stevegrant]

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.

Correct. It's quite telling that they've only set allowable wage increase levels for the next three seasons, which coincide with the next round of broadcasting contracts. Depending on which way the 2016-19 negotiations go, I'd expect the PL to revisit the allowable increases and other criteria in three years' time.

 

As our wage bill will surely be less than £52m, we can also increase it by as much as we like initially. I wonder whether that would enable a club to go from, say, £30m (a ballpark guess of our current wage bill) to £70m in the space of a year because they were below the £52m threshold at the start of that season, and from then onwards they could only increase by £4m per year...

[trousers]

@OliverKayTimes: Prem Lge increases pressure on clubs to drop opposition to new financial regs ahead of today's ratification vote http://t.co/TmwPQpw2Uw

 

@OliverKayTimes: In email seen by The Times, Scudamore urges "dissenters" (Villa, WBA, Soton, MCFC, Fulham, Swansea - & Reading who abstained) to accept regs

 

@OliverKayTimes: Self-interest abounds in FFP debate. But when sensible clubs eg Swansea, West Brom oppose regulation, it's hard to see "no" camp as bad guys

Edited 11 April, 2013 by trousers

[Saint_clark]

In all honesty they've taken a decent premise and gone the wrong way about it. All this will do in it's current form is increase the gulf in spending power between teams in europe and teams outside.

[jayrivers]

In all honesty they've taken a decent premise and gone the wrong way about it. All this will do in it's current form is increase the gulf in spending power between teams in europe and teams outside.

 

Well the wage thing is interesting though?

 

Clubs whose total wage bill is more than £52m will only be allowed to increase their wages by £4m per season for the next three years, but the cap does not cover extra money coming in from increases in commercial or matchday income.

 

The ceiling when the wage increase restrictions kick in will be £52m next season, £56m the following year and £60m in 2015-16. Only seven of the current top-flight clubs would be under that ceiling at the moment.

 

Taken from here http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11700/8630495/Premier-League-Clubs-will-be-asked-to-ratify-plans-for-Financial-Fair-Play

 

 

So I take that to mean you can't keep buying players on high wages and retaining them. £4m a year amounts to one player on £75,000 a week? To chelsea wouldn't be able to buy 3 super stars each year without selling some players on?

[Saint Garrett]

Isn't this why Man Utd have just had a huge training ground sponsorship deal? And Man City got their stadium sponsorship from Etihad ?

[Saint_John]

The best write-up of the rules I've seen is here :- http://www.lawinsport.com/blog/daniel-geey-s-blog/item/premier-league-has-jumped-aboard-the-financial-regulation-ship but even he doesn't know all the details. However there is a section for promoted clubs etc. but he ends by saying

Until the regulations are published this coming summer, the answers to a number of the above questions will not be known.

[trousers]

One of the 6 clubs who voted 'no' last time has switched to 'yes'. Not revealed who that is yet though

[Saint86]

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

 

Have you been living under a rock. FFP in this guise is a disaster... We know, the Swiss banker who worked for a family who didn't believe in debt knows it, and most fans know it. Just last week OUR financial advisor called a meeting between the clubs who are against it to try and put a stop to it. It will be the end of Competitive British football. Old Firm here we come.

[SaintRobbie]

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.

 

I agree. What's more I suspect that clubs like Chelski will bend the rules by gifting players property and other perks instead to make up the shortfalls they'd expect by playing for the wealthier teams.

[Saint86]

One of the 6 clubs who voted 'no' last time has switched to 'yes'. Not revealed who that is yet though

 

It was rumoured to be Swansea last week, once they were told that European monies didn't count ^_- funny that isnt it.