New PL spending rules

DJ said:
Looking at the accounts comparisons…

Accounts - June 2023

Well, if Bill's astute enough to become a 1.6 Dollar Billionaire, I'm willing to accept he and his accountants know enough about FFP to differentiate between their assets and their elbows : ) Bill owns the train now and he's driving it. He knows his destination, we'll either get there or it'll...
bournemouth-forum.vitalfootball.co.uk

So for example, we click our fingers and we have our sparkling new Brentford-a-like stadium.

Match day revenue could increase by £7million. Commercial could also increase by £7million.

It still wouldn’t add up to a Hamed Traore transfer fee, plus his £2.3 wages or whatever cut of the £16million spent on player agents that Traore’s agent took.
Click to expand...

Surely the £14m increase would be annual in that scenario but the Traore fee/wages would be split over 5 years?
 
  1. Man Utd - £3,821,000 per week
  2. Man City - £3,705,000 per week
  3. Arsenal - £3,298,000 per week
  4. Chelsea - £2,978,000 per week
  5. Liverpool - £2,670,000 per week
  6. Aston Villa - £2,135,000 per week
  7. Tottenham - £2,130,000 per week
  8. West Ham - £1,833,000 per week
  9. Newcastle United - £1,638,000 per week
  10. Everton - £1,524,000 per week
  11. Crystal Palace - £1,408,000 per week
  12. Fulham - £1,288,000 per week
  13. Nottingham Forest - £1,283,000 per week
  14. Brighton - £1,165,000 per week
  15. Bournemouth - 973,000 per week
  16. Brentford - £836,000 per week
  17. Wolverhampton Wanderers - £830,000 per week
  18. Burnley - £707,000 per week
  19. Sheffield United - £674,000 per week
  20. Luton Town - £469,000 per week
Here is the full list of the Premier League’s sides ranked by their gross combined weekly wage bills.

The above info from sportbible using capology info.

BHA above us?
Hmmm where art thou Stevebha?
 
I'm a bit confused.

So we have a 5 times rule but also an 80% one. The former is rendered pointless by the latter as it's extremely unlikely that will ever be breached without external investment.

If you're still trying to place hard caps on external investment then the likes of City will just inject cash through the inevitable loopholes.
 
kirsikka said:
Surely the £14m increase would be annual in that scenario but the Traore fee/wages would be split over 5 years?
Click to expand...

It was just an example to make it simplified as requested.

However, the wages is the annual wage. Agents fee is also an annual amount spent and I’m sure the transfer fees will also be down to how much is paid over the accountancy period. So that split over the years will be adjusted over time to suit a clubs current scenario. Clubs could well all change to wanting money up front and not in drips and drabs.
 
Kudos said:
I'm a bit confused.

So we have a 5 times rule but also an 80% one. The former is rendered pointless by the latter as it's extremely unlikely that will ever be breached without external investment.

If you're still trying to place hard caps on external investment then the likes of City will just inject cash through the inevitable loopholes.
Click to expand...

The “cap” based on x amount times bottom clubs tv revenue is the cap that will effect the likes of City and closes the loopholes they may or may not be using.
 
DJ said:
The “cap” based on x amount times bottom clubs tv revenue is the cap that will effect the likes of City and closes the loopholes they may or may not be using.
Click to expand...
The use of a loophole isn't considered wrongdoing from a legal (if not ethical) perspective so we are okay to not use "allegedly" all the time?

There are well-documented links between sponsors and the owner:
theathletic.com

Special report: Manchester City's sponsors, the links to Abu Dhabi and what it means for Newcastle United

Many of City's sponsors have links to people who run the club, their families or others in Abu Dhabi
theathletic.com theathletic.com

So the 80% rule is just there to catch out clubs without a host of different businesses to use as investment vehicles?
 
Kudos said:
The use of a loophole isn't considered wrongdoing from a legal (if not ethical) perspective so we are okay to not use "allegedly" all the time?

There are well-documented links between sponsors and the owner:
theathletic.com

Special report: Manchester City's sponsors, the links to Abu Dhabi and what it means for Newcastle United

Many of City's sponsors have links to people who run the club, their families or others in Abu Dhabi
theathletic.com theathletic.com

So the 80% rule is just there to catch out clubs without a host of different businesses to use as investment vehicles?
Click to expand...
As in multi club models?
 
RobTrent said:
If this is smaller clubs fighting back then great.
Click to expand...
Probably why all the fans of bigger clubs are complaining that they are being "punished" for having too much money.

Seen a few saying the brand would be ruined as the best players wouldn't come and the TV deal might be less then etc.

I suppose someone like Man U think they need to spend big to keep up and this stops their great masterplan of doing that,
 
Last edited:
DJ said:
It was just an example to make it simplified as requested.

However, the wages is the annual wage. Agents fee is also an annual amount spent and I’m sure the transfer fees will also be down to how much is paid over the accountancy period. So that split over the years will be adjusted over time to suit a clubs current scenario. Clubs could well all change to wanting money up front and not in drips and drabs.
Click to expand...

I could be wrong but I don't think it's affected by when the transfer fee money leaves the account. We could pay it all upfront but, for this purpose, still split the cost in our accounts over five years.
 
kirsikka said:
I could be wrong but I don't think it's affected by when the transfer fee money leaves the account. We could pay it all upfront but, for this purpose, still split the cost in our accounts over five years.
Click to expand...

Again, I was trying to keep it simple as per the request.

How things are currently down on an accountancy side may not be how it’s calculated for this. The devil will be in the detail. But the question was make it simple, so I gave a simplified example.
 
RobTrent said:
I don’t know how or if ffp applies in other countries? I was asking if we would be caught by that rule.
Click to expand...
UEFA FFP applies to anyone playing in Europe.

The big 5 nations all have some form of it, as does Scotland. A-league has a complex salary cap structure.

I think for us, you could fudge it by sharing allowances via loans of youth players or something strange like that but as far as I know, you're only moving money between football clubs. I guess Foley could for example invest some of his money into Bournemouth using the "secure funding" allocation that we're not using to buy a player to be loaned to another club.

Maybe if you owned a middle eastern or south American club you could use it as a mechanism to avoid FFP but I don't think any of the clubs Foley owns would be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

;