Points penalties to be replaced by “luxury tax”

DJ said:
Ultimately FFP/PSR was never about preventing big clubs from overspending, it was about protecting clubs from being run into the ground or taken advantage of by its owners.

We now have a system than enables clubs to overspend and doesn’t protect them from clocking up massive debts to owners.

That should be prevented. Owners shouldn’t be piling on £100m worth of loans to a club during a takeover.

Once that is dealt with, then maybe this tax could work, especially if it distributes money down the ladder.
Click to expand...
Not actually true DJ.

The current FFP rules were voted for by the member clubs of the PL, why would owners vote for rules to prevent their clubs being taken advantage of by themselves? That would be absurd. Like many (Everton fans cough cough) you are making assumptions on this subject and passing them off as fact.

The top clubs voted for these rules because they want to make it as difficult as possible for others to compete with them. The lower clubs voted for them because they didn’t want to be placed in a situation whereby they would have to spend unsustainably to be competitive ie if other clubs at the bottom started to spend £200m+ to stay up then others would have to follow suit to have a chance of competing.

The simple reality is that we have these regulations because the PL member clubs (19 out of 20 of them) voted for them, and these clubs all acted in their best interests.

It has nothing to do with protecting clubs from owners like you say, unless you think the owners feel the need to protect themselves from themselves.
 
Waz afcb said:
Not actually true DJ.

The current FFP rules were voted for by the member clubs of the PL, why would owners vote for rules to prevent their clubs being taken advantage of by themselves?
Click to expand...

Because the government has been constantly threatening to get involved if they don't.
 
SlowDownDerek said:
Because the government has been constantly threatening to get involved if they don't.
Click to expand...
You think the owners of lower end PL clubs voted for these rules due to government pressure? I don’t believe that to be true, in the slightest. They voted because it benefits them, pure and simple.
 
Waz afcb said:
You think the owners of lower end PL clubs voted for these rules due to government pressure? I don’t believe that to be true, in the slightest. They voted because it benefits them, pure and simple.
Click to expand...

Yeah that's exactly what happened. Same reason that the European superleague hit the skids as soon as it was announced.

Anyway your logic about why the lower clubs voted for it doesn't stack up. Lower clubs wouldn't have to spend £200m+ to be competitive unless loads of them were realistically going to do just that, in which case why would they vote to restrict theor ability to do it?
 
afcb_rednblack said:
What a stupid idea. So the likes of Luton, Sheffield Utd, Palace, us (perhaps) to name but a few, won’t have the financial wherewithal to “press on regardless”, whereas Man City, Newcastle and others, by dint of their ownership, have the potential for unlimited funds so can continue to buy their way to success.
Click to expand...
Maybe convenient just when the bigger clubs are struggling or due to be punished ?

Guess rules do change but not Forest and Everton will be happy after they did lose points for financial irregularities.
 
Surely the NBA exists in a bubble and regulate itself however it wants. EFL clubs still have to comply with UEFA rules on FFP to play in European competition?
 
This could just be recognition that the current FFP rules are likely to be legally challenged at some point.

Why shouldn’t a club like Newcastle, with incredibly rich owners, be able to spend as much as those owners want to spend ? Ultimately they are footing the bill, they as entrepreneurs should be able to make that risk assessment. Some clubs have always been richer than others, that is true throughout all leagues and this continues to be the case.

The beauty of football is that, in theory, a poorer team can still win the league, if they get more right than the richer “bigger” teams.

If the “excessive” spend gets redistributed to the poorer teams, it’s win win. As long as the big spenders can justify their “excessive” spending to themselves, they are happy and those receiving their share of the resulting penalty are also happy.

It’s a good solution for the league because it means that well financed clubs can continue to afford to bring the world’s best players into the league but it helps the other clubs and will at some point become a limiting factor to the richest clubs.

Certainly not the worst idea and almost certainly better than what we currently have.

We have seen time and again that spending money doesn’t guarantee success. As long as there is a chance of the fairytale that one of the smaller clubs COULD win the league by getting everything right, then the league will continue to have integrity. Once buying success becomes the only way, that’s when the whole financial inequality urgently needs to be addressed. It wasn’t so long ago that Leicester managed to win the league, so you could argue that we’re not there yet but I would say that we do need to keep an eye on the situation and in future adjust the taxation level accordingly.
 
purbeck67 said:
Surely the NBA exists in a bubble and regulate itself however it wants. EFL clubs still have to comply with UEFA rules on FFP to play in European competition?
Click to expand...
Yes, that's true of all the major North American sports leagues. Two other big differences are (1) (as mentioned earlier) the existence of Players' Associations with a varying degree of clout and (2) anti-trust legislation in the US that covers various schemes to circumvent fair competition and suppression of players' rights.

I suppose a reasonable conclusion is that any Luxury Tax model for European football won't look anything like what is applied in North America.
 
SlowDownDerek said:
They have to do something and this might work, who knows? What I do know is that randomly docking points from teams through the season is not the right answer.
Click to expand...
Agree. The whole point of FPP was to give a level playing field. We now know that doesn’t work as it’s just extrapolated into everyone having to sell their best players earlier and maybe cheaper than they want to while the European giants don’t have to. So it’s not only not eleviated the issue it’s exacerbated it. Newcastle may be in the bizarre position where they have to cash in on Isaak and Guimares this summer thus ruining their chance of ever hitting the top group.

If the clubs spending it had to give 50% of it to the ones not spending it then clearly that brings everyone up a level. The top ones are spending it anyway.

I think it actually reads as a brilliant idea.
 
Neil Dawson said:
Agree. The whole point of FPP was to give a level playing field. We now know that doesn’t work as it’s just extrapolated into everyone having to sell their best players earlier and maybe cheaper than they want to while the European giants don’t have to. So it’s not only not eleviated the issue it’s exacerbated it. Newcastle may be in the bizarre position where they have to cash in on Isaak and Guimares this summer thus ruining their chance of ever hitting the top group.

If the clubs spending it had to give 50% of it to the ones not spending it then clearly that brings everyone up a level. The top ones are spending it anyway.

I think it actually reads as a brilliant idea.
Click to expand...
The UEFA rules in my limited understanding are not too dissimilar to our own and possibly a little stricter so the threat of players being poached by them is relatively low.

Only Saudi is a threat but that thankfully is a joke of a league so not a threat either as it stands but if it becomes an FFP outlet then there is a genuine risk of it eventually competing with Europe as teams will push players that way to gain advantage. Who has the spare cash to buy Isak for example?

Let's say 4 clubs want to overspend by an average of £100M, they have to pay another £100M (£200M total) that goes into the pot for the remaining 16 who will get £25M each or £20M each with £80M being used for supporting the EFL and grassroots.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

;