Financial Fair Play Watch.

[Robbie]

Premier League clubs are meeting later this week to discuss replacing profit and sustainability rules with new financial fair play regulations

 

[Robbie]

So this meeting is going to discuss changing the profit and sustainability rules once again, to new financial fair play regulations 

To summarise.

At the moment clubs are allowed to lose up to £105 million in a rolling three year period.

Premier league clubs are looking to follow the UEFA model where clubs are allowed to spend 70% of turnover every year.

So under the new proposals, if a club has a £500million turnover every year, they would be allowed to spend 70% of that amount which would be £350million. They may even set a higher limit than that such as 80% of turnover a year.

This would be very controversial because these new rules would clearly favour the rich clubs, leaving the rest further behind.

The Premier league may propose a sweetener by increasing the amount of money going to clubs down the football pyramid, to get these proposals accepted, but it is still not good news for fair competition.

[liampie]

is this just to help man city get off with their punishments? it does not sound fair at all. it just plays into the hands of the bigger clubs. it sounds very negative and i am tired of football repeatedly changing its rules on a whim.

[allardyces tash]

I’m unsure what to pen down, I believe the alterations are being introduced at a stage where it seems illogical to implement them. It appears to be something that would extend the reach and make it more challenging for the smaller clubs to prosper. I’m not in favour of the changes, if anything, they should be more stringent.

[KB1862]

5 hours ago, liampie said:

is this just to help man city get off with their punishments? it does not sound fair at all. it just plays into the hands of the bigger clubs. it sounds very negative and i am tired of football repeatedly changing its rules on a whim.

Even if they do change the rules, they still shouldn't let Man City off. They'll probably try spin it saying that the new rules means no offence has been committed but the offence was committed before the rule change so irrelevant of the new rule change, when they implement it, they still should be punished. So, if they do change the narrative on Man City then they should also do the same with Everton. 

Be interesting to see how it plays out. 

The whole thing plays in to the hands of clubs that have the most money. Chelsea and Man United aren't the big hitters they used to be. Newcastle and Aston Villa are mixing it up there. I wonder if that's why they're changing it? Making it easier for teams of the "big 6" to keep up there and the rest struggle to keep pace. Anything to keep them clubs happy no matter how negatively it effects others.

They're also probably doing this because clubs have had a quiet transfer window due to the fear of being punished for FFP spending. Premier League clubs have for a long while not been the biggest spenders in the transfer window. That is also a factor for this change I believe. 

[Robbie]

I agree @KB1862

The Premier league have to have 14 clubs vote for the rule change for it to go through.

How can 14 clubs other than the top six vote to make themselves even less competitive over time?

They should at least vote for the status quo till Man C  is sorted out.

They should be considering  putting a Cap on transfers and wages as an alternative solution.

[KB1862]

I think a cap is a more appropriate solution than the current rules or this new proposed rule. It would still benefit the bigger clubs to a certain extent but would also make it more competitive.

Capping wages and transfers sort of levels out the playing field while also allowing clubs to sustain themselves because of the cap. As long as the cap isn't massively above what teams can actually spend. 

[Chris]

Chelsea and Manchester City are two teams whose owners directly transformed them into much bigger clubs by pumping in money. According to the Sky Sports panellist, it's like 'supercharging'.

I think most decisions always tend to benefit the bigger clubs, as the Premier League want to keep eyes on the product, and they understand that players will only sign for teams where they believe theirs a chance of having success. Success is measured quite differently, although ambitious footballers want to win leagues and cups.

Buying a club and rapidly investing isn't something I feel is safe, if City's owner pulls out they will need to massively reduce their cost of running. So, I feel the changes are being suggested to benefit owners of this nature and further give them funds to outspend the lower teams. It's a sad situation, as teams do tend to chase the Premier League and that can come at a cost of overspending.

The fans are then punished by seeing their team deducted points or, if they manage to fall within the rules - they risk the long term future of the club. It's part of what is ruining the game. It always has and always will be, but they could use more common sense to make clubs fall within a percentage of their income, ensuring teams operate at a reasonable rate.

The top clubs will always splash the cash, they've got it and want to remain in Europe. It's more about how they can stop overspending. I do think this change would make it easier for City to ignore their overspending and in a way that they get away with it.

[Robbie]

 

[Robbie]

Breaking News.

So Everton's punishment has been reduced. Their points deduction reduced to six from the 10 originally given them.

This now takes them above Forest, but they may still get another points deduction, because there is still a decision to be made on further Everton FFP transgressions.

And Forest are under investigation too. They await a possible points deduction.

It could turn out that both may get relegated due to points reductions late in the season

What a complete and utter farce, these fair play rules are.

And how long are we going to wait for a decision on Man City?