New PL spending rules

wayneofafcb said:
Well yes indeed. 170 million payout for getting to premiership. Forest poss spent that already. Its certainly a huge gamble. Stoke and Bristol City have spent loads and hovering around breaking FFP rules. Only the allowances made for covid losses stopped both breaking ffp. I think AFCB shouldn't go above 50.million net spend every year.
Click to expand...

£50m net spend will still be pretty much all of the money gone, nothing left for a training ground or anything.
 
Silent AFCB said:
£50m net spend will still be pretty much all of the money gone, nothing left for a training ground or anything.
Click to expand...
Think the 5 to 7 million for training ground is financially OK.. new ground no. Only feasible option is reignite plan to turn Ted Mac into a 7000 two tier permanent stand. 16,000 capacity is better than 11000.
Max may begrudge this but it makes sense. The finance gor new ground isn't happening. Shame BCP council can blow 500 million on turkeys like Mallard Rd retail park etc but not build a ground that would be huge asset for the town. And a steady return
 
kirsikka said:
Despite the fact they'd already have a budget hugely bigger than the smaller clubs under this scheme.
Click to expand...

My understanding is that it's anchored on the bottom-placed team and is presumably a multiple rather than a percentage, e.g. 4 times Southampton's TV revenue for last season. It has to be a multiple otherwise every club would fall foul of it and it wouldn't be competitive in the wider market.
It would take truly obscene wages to hit that cap and if you want to press it further it would require making more cash for the bottom-placed side through redistribution or growing the league as a whole.

Maybe they could reverse the TV money so the lowest-positioned team gets the most cash sort of like the draft system in the states. :unsure:
 
Slightly off topic, but the Telegraph said yesterday that, from this season’s treble, Man City will directly earn (in prize/TV money): £180 million for winning the Premier League; £110 million for winning the Champions’ League; and £4 million for winning the FA Cup.
 
Sorry Roger said:
Slightly off topic, but the Telegraph said yesterday that, from this season’s treble, Man City will directly earn (in prize/TV money): £180 million for winning the Premier League; £110 million for winning the Champions’ League; and £4 million for winning the FA Cup.
Click to expand...

And 500 million in shirt sales from plastics who pick 'the best team' as 'their team'
 
Man Utd are already objecting. Let's see what happens when they and their cabal of special few threaten to take their ball home and cry to their Mummy again if they don't get their way. As happened with the overseas tv money.
 
It's a really interesting idea because the lowest (I'm assuming they mean financially weakest) side is not incentivised to fluff their numbers but the league as a whole is incentivised to prop up the weakest side.

Lets say Luton are the lowest, every £1M sent their way gives Man City £5M to spend.
 
Kudos said:
It's a really interesting idea because the lowest (I'm assuming they mean financially weakest) side is not incentivised to fluff their numbers but the league as a whole is incentivised to prop up the weakest side.

Lets say Luton are the lowest, every £1M sent their way gives Man City £5M to spend.
Click to expand...

Indeed, spread the tv money more evenly across the entire division and you get to spend more.
 
Rob151060 said:
I think this is a great idea and will benefit all clubs in the EPL- for that reason you might think the big 6 will vote against it. But will they? Salary caps are applied in US sport as I understand it so maybe the majority of American owners will see this as the proper way forward. Would be good for us and the league
Click to expand...

It's one of the better options they've come up with and for once, is skewed towards "everyone else" rather than the "big 6+1".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

;