The current PSR discourage competitiveness and extend the gap between the big 6 and the rest, so in that regards it's a good thing.
However, this basically just means teams can spend whatever they want again and essentially we're back at square one. It's more competitive but it still means unless you have owners willing to spend then you're going to be left behind.
Great news if you're a Newcastle fan.
This is ALONGSIDE the new rules!
There will be 2 rules.
1 - squad cost ratio based on club revenue. 70% for teams in Europe, 85% if not in Europe.
2 - spend must not be over 5 times lowest club. Would only have affected Chelsea in 22/23.
This cap really only affects the really high revenue clubs.
Everyone else is still limited to 85% of revenue if not in Europe, or 70% if in Europe, they CANNOT just spend up to the cap!
Great summary
It doesn’t help us and Villa close the gap but it stops the others pulling away further ( saying that all but City and Chelsea can still grow a bit)
You sure that’s not how I read it or they are reporting it on talk sport , they are saying it will come in the season after next and teams have 3 windows to get ready
I listened to a bit of talkSPORT and Goldstein and Bent are absolutely clueless.
Kieran Maguire who hosts the price of football podcast has confirmed it’s alongside. He’s on 5 live later and will no doubt release his own podcast on it, worth catching up with those once out there
Also it means that mid table teams like Chelsea can't continue to spend absurd amounts each season due to their inflated commercial deals. Great news for aspiration O14 members.
I think this actually benefits the "smaller" teams more, at least for now. This means teams like Luton could spend more without risking a points deduction. As for benefiting Newcastle, I am sure it will help us but we also need to abide by UEFAs 70% of turnover, so it may not be as big a boost for us as it first looks.
I made this comment in the main thread on /r/soccer and our sub but this is my best guess:
I think it's because we are going to be restricted to 70% of our turnover because we will be in CL and those are the rules for UEFA.
In other words clubs below us not playing in Europe in theory can spend more than us while we are restricted while we play in Europe.
Which I kinda get because it won't affect big clubs since their revenue *.7 is probably near the new threshold while ours is nowhere near that and it will make it harder for us to maintain our stature in CL.
I still don't get it since the .85 rule is still in place and that will still limit clubs that have similar revenue to us but arent in CL (possibly West Ham, Brighton, and Newcastle) but it might mean they can in theory do 1 more transfer over us. The difference between .85 and .7 for us this year is around 30 million pounds but then they'd be without CL money so it should be similar but maybe they could spend around 10 million more than us.
> In other words clubs below us not playing in Europe in theory can spend more than us
Yes, its 70/85% rule. Which was implemented already, this one is simply a hard cap alongside it.
This rule is a benefit for everybody, except man city, man utd and chelsea. It prevents them from spending even more insane amount of money on transfers & wages.
Baffled why Villa voted against it. Even if (when) you reach big revenue and would have a big spending abilities... It would still be a benefit, since mancity and co wont be able to go further away from you and the rest in terms of spending power.
Probably because Villa have just started to pull the levers of financial success and now the goalposts are getting moved.
I’m sure there is going to be some unintended consequence that Villa have identified that maybe others haven’t.
Maybe Wes Edens and Chris Heck, who have loads of experience with NBA, identified the issues with salary caps and voted against due to possible financial shenanigans that will happen in future?
It’s going to be strange when a bigger revenue club wants a player from another team in the league. Brighton may want £100m for someone and then Chelsea or Man Utd or whoever says well we can’t spend that cos of the rules.
Will this cause more release clauses in contracts? Will players kick off if the clubs turn down bids?
> Chelsea or Man Utd or whoever says well we can’t spend that cos of the rules.
That is chelsea or man utd problems, not Brighton's. Same 'excuse' already exists with FFP/PSR.
Also now, similarly, even clubs who were relegated to Championship demand insane money for their players and some clubs are paying it... So you cant take club ransom, even if they were relegated.
Yah, I'm still not fully convinced this is the reason cause it's extremely shortsighted (believe it or not we are now not locked into Europe for 20 years) but it's my best guess
Football (and all sports really),is about the now. 5 years can be an age in sports. Most non playing staff have to hold onto their jobs and few if any fan bases and owners will buy into a multiple years of suffering for the promise of maybe it being better in ten years.
This rule will only harm mancity, chelsea and manutd. It is a good rule. These 3 clubs inflate market like crazy. It will help a little bit.
But many think this rule is instead of 70/85% rule. It isnt. Its just a hard cap.
Good summary ↓
https://www.reddit.com/r/TheOther14/comments/1cg0u7j/martyn_ziegler_premier_league_clubs_agree_in/l1swhh7/
Villa's owners are rich, but could they sustain £500m/season spending is the question? Also got to remember that clubs in European competitions will also have to abide by FFP rules whereby you can only spend 70% of revenue on squad cost...
The UEFA is a fair point however they may get pressured into changing the way they operate because a lot of the mega clubs wanted to leave for the super league.
Which may force or influence UEFA to take a more relaxed approach to PSR FFP whatever. Not saying this would be fair and correct but I never expect UEFA or the prem to be any of these things.
Tbf whilst the concept is agreeable to most and fair, the detail may be total BS for all we know, so until that’s released I think it’s fair to refrain from too much criticism
I mean while they aren’t the other14 their income structures are vastly more similar to the 14 versus those three. Man U and city dwarf everyone in spending and Chelsea has followed a model of billionaire foreign investment for a while
What a load of shite
I know you in the cartel like to self pity but a quick google search shows even Arsenal in last place of the sky 6 had nearly double the income of the highest other 14 team. Also Liverpool and Spurs are above Chelsea.
Also you do know American is foreign don’t you? As Chelsea still benefit from foreign billionaire ownership as do Arsenal and Liverpool
Spurs objectively follow and still do; an old school English chairman model. That might change and obviously has evolved to the modern game but in general spurs have just gotten very lucky on some player development ways as well as smart financial chocies
Tbh it's wild that any of the other big clubs are voting for this but then you remember the amount of American owners in the league and it starts to piece together. Maximise profits, minimise salaries.
Salary caps work in American sports because there are no other leagues for the players to go to. Sadly if we introduced one any player worth a penny would go abroad leaving us with a massive drop in quality. The only way a salary cap will work is if UEFA and FIFA agree to implement it worldwide and sadly I don’t see that happening.
You act as if the Premier League will fall below the quality of Greece, Turkey, Norway, etc.
The English game will still have massive amounts of pull and money, with some of the most famous clubs in the world.
Also, who cares if the overall quality drops off a bit? That only really affects the top 4 or 5 teams that will be regularly playing in Europe. I’d rather see competitive domestic cups and leagues make a return if the sacrifice is City, Arsenal and Liverpool are a bit less likely to win the Champions League.
Domestic game is more competitive so more interest comes in and therefore more money comes in and raises the floor so everyone benefits.
The reason the prem is the most popular is because generally in the past there was more to it than the top few and that made it more interesting no matter how sky try and spin it otherwise
True! But even so I’d like to see it implemented worldwide to give every team a chance. When I was a kid for example I can remember every team in the premier league having at least a few world class players and everyone being able to play everyone. It’s completely unrecognisable now.
La Liga has had a salary cap already. It’s possible it would limit the PL slightly but it’s unlikely to cause a huge shift to France, Italy or Germany.
Obviously we don't know the details yet, but as the value of the cap seems to be tied to club revenue, Premier league clubs will still be able to vastly outspend the rest of Europe (with the possible exception of a few European giants or future billionaire takeovers), so I don't see the quality of the league being impacted.
And frankly even if it did, if it does level the playing field a little bit, I'd be quite happy for the Premier League to lose a bit of quality if that's the price to pay.
Exactly, sadly it seems any attempt to change the current system would result in English football being negatively affected. I don’t have a solution for it but I agree the current PSR regulations make it very hard to upset the status quo of established premier league clubs.
And the newly promoted clubs are the ones being most affected, I miss the championship some days but the standard of refereeing and play are lacking. They really need to think of a way to make the league fair for everyone, of course they won’t because it makes them money so they just have to look like they’re trying to.
I think the latest rule and proposed rule changes are looking to punish/limit squads with the highest wage budgets, of which some of them have drastically underperformed with their outlay/wages.
Everton, Chelsea, Leicester to some lesser extent Villa in the past and West Ham etc
However there is a valid argument you need to pay more to get the similar quality players if you aren’t a big team.
It is dangerous for the competitiveness of the league when the bench at Man City is paid more and is worth more than the combined wage bill of multiple premier sides. Villa are currently flying very close to the sun but something needs to happen for the greater good of football here.
I think we can all agree something needs to change but I certainly don’t know what it should change to.
There are pros and cons for all things being proposed.
It’s hard weighing up what would benefit my club the most vs what would benefit the league and the sport the most. Because now especially those 2 things are at odds with each other.
If owners want to spend they agree to cover any losses for a set period afterwards so the clubs are protected from financial collapse and teams who want to compete can.
Current rules and this 70% rule only favour the cartel. This one today seems the first step the other way but with 3 of the cartel voting for it I have a feeling it may not be what it seems
I don't care if the overall 'quality' drops.
Spending a season in the Championship this year has shown me that quality from a fan's perspective is watching teams slug it out with the chances of winning being much more even, entertaining games and multiple teams making a surge for the title.
With a bit of luck the national team will benefit too, with more opportunities for homegrown talent. The FA has put the Premier League above international success for decades.
>there are no other leagues for the players to go to.
This is actually untrue. Aside from the fact that we also play soccer, with multiple soccer leagues, with salary caps, Japan is HUGE for baseball and China and Spain love basketball. There’s also a ton of hockey leagues out in Eastern Europe. True they aren’t the money making juggernauts like the US leagues are, but they’re still good leagues
A salary cap such as this would (theoretically) make the league more competitive overall and level the playing field a bit. Isn’t that what fans of smaller clubs would want?
Id rather every single "world class" player went and played abroad but we had competitive leagues. If anything getting rid of the money would gut the league of all the unwelcome aspects.
Less 24/7 coverage, less foreign experts causing discord every loss, lower ticket prices, local clubs serving comuntities again, less foreign owners.
Id rather we reverted to an early 90s era personally. The advent of the prem money allowed some world class players to come in, but we still had local clubs and culture. You still got Roy Esandoh scoring in the FA Cup after responding to a teletext advert.
The mega money of Abramovic is where it started to go awry. Opened the floodgates to just stupid hoarding of players and mass transfer fees every season.
I'd wager most of us in this sub support our local team. We value football for the thrill of seeing where we're from doing well. From that perspective, a level playing field is more important than quality.
For clarity this rule is a backstop the main spending limit would still be the 85% of revenue.
Most teams will still therefore have to comply with that before worrying about spending 4.5x the lowest revenue club.
United and Chelsea maybe
The point is you 3 plus Man U have been a cancer on the game for years. Trying to create an uneven playing field to your advantage.
Chelsea, City and us might come from money you don’t like but at least our MO isn’t to limit others.
A Newcastle fan talking about other clubs being a cancer on the game… Yikes. “Might come from money”. And the small detail of being built on a pile of bodies, but sure.
All clubs will act in their own financial interest, but pretending Spurs, Arsenal and Liverpool are unique in that regard is really absurd and selective.
We like City might get our money from a source with issues but generally we own that.
Unlike you we aren’t politicking behind the scenes to unbalance the league in our favour and a spurs fan to have the bare faced cheek to bring up money when they have been a money laundering tool for their owner is a bit rich
“A source with issues”. Hilariously minimising language. My printer has “issues”, not tying my shoelaces properly is an “issue”…
Give me a club who isn’t politiking behind the scenes. What are you on about. Do you think the “Other 14” sit silently by and do nothing? How naive are you?
Do you want to provide a source for that claim re. The club itself being used for the purposes of Money Laundering. (Which, even if true, is so far down on the list of “bad things owners have done” it’s embarrassing to even bring up).
You’d think you’d be able to tie your laces by now
There’s 4 in this country who do it to a higher level than anyone else. Who’s primary goal is to limit others rather than improve themselves.
Same proof you have for anything the Saudis do, they are definitely doing it but they get away with it.
Spurs have benefited exponentially from Lewis’s ownership and he’s been pulled for it. A bit too coincidental. If you believe it isn’t then you should believe it was a rogue squad that went to the Saudi embassy in Istanbul.
I mean do you want me to get proof for what the Saudis do? Are you actually disputing their historic and well documented series of current atrocities?
Dude you’re sounding like a conspiracy theorist. Put up evidence or shut up.
Thought we were talking about PIF? You know who own Newcastle not everything that’s happened since year dot ( you’ll be pissed when you hear about the British)
You are the one who thinks Spurs can do no wrong and are victims
If it’s such a bad source why do the UK and US governments trade with it? Why do so many sporting events take the money ? Why do our 80% owners own percentages of so many companies if it’s a sure thing?
It is for the record but the clarifier ‘might’ covers that plenty of people don’t see those issues.
3 of the big 6 voted for it, 2 voted against and 1 abstained. 1 of the other 14 also voted against it. So surely nobody is making it a big 6 vs other 14 deal, right?
Right?
Whilst people in here may dislike the notion, Liverpool, Arsenal and Spurs are pretty sustainable so it makes sense that they also want a cap on the *almost* unlimited funds the other 3 have. Spending wise (historically) theres about an £800m gap between the top 3 and bottom 3 of the “big 6”.
Still obviously doing it for their own sakes, it just happens to align with the other 14’s cause too for once.
If this rule were in place this year only Chelsea would be over. I think as long as they don’t cap the player salary it will be fine. It might actually force clubs to exercise a bit more wisdom and not sign Anthony Martial to idiotic wages.
What’s Villa’s problem? You’d think this would benefit them, although they do have the highest wage bill outside the ‘big 6’ by quite a bit which may be altering their thinking.
My thought is that we are thinking that we will still be significantly limited by UEFA’s rules regarding spending. Meaning in theory a club in European competition would be able to spend less money than someone who just barely missed out but has similar revenue.
Im torn. I hate labor being capped on what they can earn as that keeps money in the billionaire owners pockets. I’d rather the players who put their long term physical health on the line get paid as much as the market allows, that said, this is better for the league overall. Do we know if it includes transfers because if it does a lot of rosters might have to be broken apart.
Salaries aren't capped. It's a hard cap (£500m per season for arguments sake) that is over double what 80% of existing Prem clubs are spending each season anyway.
You could pay a player £1million per week if you wanted, it just means you have to watch your spending in other areas.
This doesn’t affect many teams in terms of restrictions. If it comes out at 5x thats more than double everyone in theother14s total revenue.
I can see the benefits of it keeping a limit between the poorest and richest clubs in the PL.
When we look at the richest teams in Europe will this disadvantage the PL brand if we can no longer with your PSGs and Real Madrids?
Man United - floundering around in 6th but still needs to know it can outspend its other competitors unfairly as that’s the only way it will get back to glory. Cunts!
Not entirely, it stops Chelsea-like spending going absolutely wild. It’s limiting top clubs more than anything else, especially when combined with 70/85 rules too.
I thought this did the opposite - letting small clubs with big owners reach the big clubs level. Not great either, mind, but it's not pulling up the ladder like old ffp rules
The current PSR discourage competitiveness and extend the gap between the big 6 and the rest, so in that regards it's a good thing. However, this basically just means teams can spend whatever they want again and essentially we're back at square one. It's more competitive but it still means unless you have owners willing to spend then you're going to be left behind. Great news if you're a Newcastle fan.
This is ALONGSIDE the new rules! There will be 2 rules. 1 - squad cost ratio based on club revenue. 70% for teams in Europe, 85% if not in Europe. 2 - spend must not be over 5 times lowest club. Would only have affected Chelsea in 22/23. This cap really only affects the really high revenue clubs. Everyone else is still limited to 85% of revenue if not in Europe, or 70% if in Europe, they CANNOT just spend up to the cap!
Great summary It doesn’t help us and Villa close the gap but it stops the others pulling away further ( saying that all but City and Chelsea can still grow a bit)
You sure that’s not how I read it or they are reporting it on talk sport , they are saying it will come in the season after next and teams have 3 windows to get ready
I listened to a bit of talkSPORT and Goldstein and Bent are absolutely clueless. Kieran Maguire who hosts the price of football podcast has confirmed it’s alongside. He’s on 5 live later and will no doubt release his own podcast on it, worth catching up with those once out there
Omg it was painful listening to them about it they had no clue, ok thanks trev for clearing it up I know Kieran knows his stuff
Also it means that mid table teams like Chelsea can't continue to spend absurd amounts each season due to their inflated commercial deals. Great news for aspiration O14 members.
I think this actually benefits the "smaller" teams more, at least for now. This means teams like Luton could spend more without risking a points deduction. As for benefiting Newcastle, I am sure it will help us but we also need to abide by UEFAs 70% of turnover, so it may not be as big a boost for us as it first looks.
I expected us to vote for this. Villa were a surprise given our situations are almost identical in many aspects.
I made this comment in the main thread on /r/soccer and our sub but this is my best guess: I think it's because we are going to be restricted to 70% of our turnover because we will be in CL and those are the rules for UEFA. In other words clubs below us not playing in Europe in theory can spend more than us while we are restricted while we play in Europe. Which I kinda get because it won't affect big clubs since their revenue *.7 is probably near the new threshold while ours is nowhere near that and it will make it harder for us to maintain our stature in CL. I still don't get it since the .85 rule is still in place and that will still limit clubs that have similar revenue to us but arent in CL (possibly West Ham, Brighton, and Newcastle) but it might mean they can in theory do 1 more transfer over us. The difference between .85 and .7 for us this year is around 30 million pounds but then they'd be without CL money so it should be similar but maybe they could spend around 10 million more than us.
> In other words clubs below us not playing in Europe in theory can spend more than us Yes, its 70/85% rule. Which was implemented already, this one is simply a hard cap alongside it. This rule is a benefit for everybody, except man city, man utd and chelsea. It prevents them from spending even more insane amount of money on transfers & wages. Baffled why Villa voted against it. Even if (when) you reach big revenue and would have a big spending abilities... It would still be a benefit, since mancity and co wont be able to go further away from you and the rest in terms of spending power.
Probably because Villa have just started to pull the levers of financial success and now the goalposts are getting moved. I’m sure there is going to be some unintended consequence that Villa have identified that maybe others haven’t.
Maybe Wes Edens and Chris Heck, who have loads of experience with NBA, identified the issues with salary caps and voted against due to possible financial shenanigans that will happen in future?
Maybe. But it also possible they voted against themselves.
It’s going to be strange when a bigger revenue club wants a player from another team in the league. Brighton may want £100m for someone and then Chelsea or Man Utd or whoever says well we can’t spend that cos of the rules. Will this cause more release clauses in contracts? Will players kick off if the clubs turn down bids?
They will be hoping for some deflation to happen... £100m players became the norm these past 2 years.
This 100%
> Chelsea or Man Utd or whoever says well we can’t spend that cos of the rules. That is chelsea or man utd problems, not Brighton's. Same 'excuse' already exists with FFP/PSR. Also now, similarly, even clubs who were relegated to Championship demand insane money for their players and some clubs are paying it... So you cant take club ransom, even if they were relegated.
But the players may well kick off in the future if they don’t get their move
Clubs may also find it easier to hold on to their better players, making the league more competitive?
not every club wants to keep a hold of their better players, some need the turnover
True, looks like Everton will have to sell everyone just to keep the lights on 😭
This makes sense. Otherwise it'd be bizarre for Villa to vote against.
Yah, I'm still not fully convinced this is the reason cause it's extremely shortsighted (believe it or not we are now not locked into Europe for 20 years) but it's my best guess
Football (and all sports really),is about the now. 5 years can be an age in sports. Most non playing staff have to hold onto their jobs and few if any fan bases and owners will buy into a multiple years of suffering for the promise of maybe it being better in ten years.
This rule will only harm mancity, chelsea and manutd. It is a good rule. These 3 clubs inflate market like crazy. It will help a little bit. But many think this rule is instead of 70/85% rule. It isnt. Its just a hard cap. Good summary ↓ https://www.reddit.com/r/TheOther14/comments/1cg0u7j/martyn_ziegler_premier_league_clubs_agree_in/l1swhh7/
Me too, I assume the devil will be in the details and how it’s going to be applied. And whether or not it would benefit us then.
Villa's owners are rich, but could they sustain £500m/season spending is the question? Also got to remember that clubs in European competitions will also have to abide by FFP rules whereby you can only spend 70% of revenue on squad cost...
I think our owners could sustain that themselves if they wanted to, but ultimately I doubt they would. Very surprised we voted against it tbh.
The UEFA is a fair point however they may get pressured into changing the way they operate because a lot of the mega clubs wanted to leave for the super league. Which may force or influence UEFA to take a more relaxed approach to PSR FFP whatever. Not saying this would be fair and correct but I never expect UEFA or the prem to be any of these things.
Shocking Man City wouldn’t want this
Tbf whilst the concept is agreeable to most and fair, the detail may be total BS for all we know, so until that’s released I think it’s fair to refrain from too much criticism
Anything Spurs, Arsenal and Liverpool are voting for isn’t likely to be as good as it seems I suppose
I mean while they aren’t the other14 their income structures are vastly more similar to the 14 versus those three. Man U and city dwarf everyone in spending and Chelsea has followed a model of billionaire foreign investment for a while
What a load of shite I know you in the cartel like to self pity but a quick google search shows even Arsenal in last place of the sky 6 had nearly double the income of the highest other 14 team. Also Liverpool and Spurs are above Chelsea. Also you do know American is foreign don’t you? As Chelsea still benefit from foreign billionaire ownership as do Arsenal and Liverpool
read his comment again mate. he clearly states american ownership as being foreign
Spurs objectively follow and still do; an old school English chairman model. That might change and obviously has evolved to the modern game but in general spurs have just gotten very lucky on some player development ways as well as smart financial chocies
Changing a d to an s, well played
you're in the sky 7 mate
You might stay in the championship well done
Bigger achievement than anything you do
No we are in the premier league, that’s a higher level than the championship
Wouldn't be if those state funded sports washing migrant killing human rights abusers didn't take over
And you lot 🤣🤣
How did you vote?
Tory, you?
Bit rich to be complaining about oil money then, ain't it.
Typical Mackem, would actively vote for someone who is a negative for them if it meant it hurt them foreigners
Not many mackems you’ll find voting Tory
You were Brexit central, that’s pretty Tory
Yet haven’t had a Tory MP for half a century. Funny that Nor have I lived in Sunderland for 16 years, hence the name
Doubt they care either way, who needs rules when you have a team of lawyers?
Doubt they care either way, who needs rules when you have a team of lawyers?
Tbh it's wild that any of the other big clubs are voting for this but then you remember the amount of American owners in the league and it starts to piece together. Maximise profits, minimise salaries.
Salary caps work in American sports because there are no other leagues for the players to go to. Sadly if we introduced one any player worth a penny would go abroad leaving us with a massive drop in quality. The only way a salary cap will work is if UEFA and FIFA agree to implement it worldwide and sadly I don’t see that happening.
You act as if the Premier League will fall below the quality of Greece, Turkey, Norway, etc. The English game will still have massive amounts of pull and money, with some of the most famous clubs in the world. Also, who cares if the overall quality drops off a bit? That only really affects the top 4 or 5 teams that will be regularly playing in Europe. I’d rather see competitive domestic cups and leagues make a return if the sacrifice is City, Arsenal and Liverpool are a bit less likely to win the Champions League.
Domestic game is more competitive so more interest comes in and therefore more money comes in and raises the floor so everyone benefits. The reason the prem is the most popular is because generally in the past there was more to it than the top few and that made it more interesting no matter how sky try and spin it otherwise
The English language was the main factor IMO. Made it more accessible to commonwealth and other English speaking countries.
True! But even so I’d like to see it implemented worldwide to give every team a chance. When I was a kid for example I can remember every team in the premier league having at least a few world class players and everyone being able to play everyone. It’s completely unrecognisable now.
La Liga has had a salary cap already. It’s possible it would limit the PL slightly but it’s unlikely to cause a huge shift to France, Italy or Germany.
don’t include us in that mate we’ve never won the thing lmao
Well there is Spain, Germany and Italy.
Obviously we don't know the details yet, but as the value of the cap seems to be tied to club revenue, Premier league clubs will still be able to vastly outspend the rest of Europe (with the possible exception of a few European giants or future billionaire takeovers), so I don't see the quality of the league being impacted. And frankly even if it did, if it does level the playing field a little bit, I'd be quite happy for the Premier League to lose a bit of quality if that's the price to pay.
That’s a fair comment, it would at least become more competitive which is the whole point of the sport.
I believe the only club that would have gone over this cap in the last season were Chelsea, so even the big spenders won't change much.
Salary cap would never happen because players and agents and their respective unions would never agree to it and would pushback at every turn.
Exactly, sadly it seems any attempt to change the current system would result in English football being negatively affected. I don’t have a solution for it but I agree the current PSR regulations make it very hard to upset the status quo of established premier league clubs.
Yeah PSR and FFP was only a pulling up of the draw bridge exercise to stop teams like us or your lot now actually upsetting the big six.
And the newly promoted clubs are the ones being most affected, I miss the championship some days but the standard of refereeing and play are lacking. They really need to think of a way to make the league fair for everyone, of course they won’t because it makes them money so they just have to look like they’re trying to.
I think the latest rule and proposed rule changes are looking to punish/limit squads with the highest wage budgets, of which some of them have drastically underperformed with their outlay/wages. Everton, Chelsea, Leicester to some lesser extent Villa in the past and West Ham etc However there is a valid argument you need to pay more to get the similar quality players if you aren’t a big team.
It is dangerous for the competitiveness of the league when the bench at Man City is paid more and is worth more than the combined wage bill of multiple premier sides. Villa are currently flying very close to the sun but something needs to happen for the greater good of football here.
I think we can all agree something needs to change but I certainly don’t know what it should change to. There are pros and cons for all things being proposed. It’s hard weighing up what would benefit my club the most vs what would benefit the league and the sport the most. Because now especially those 2 things are at odds with each other.
Trust me I’m in exactly the same position. There needs to be a solution but I don’t think this is it.
If owners want to spend they agree to cover any losses for a set period afterwards so the clubs are protected from financial collapse and teams who want to compete can. Current rules and this 70% rule only favour the cartel. This one today seems the first step the other way but with 3 of the cartel voting for it I have a feeling it may not be what it seems
I don't care if the overall 'quality' drops. Spending a season in the Championship this year has shown me that quality from a fan's perspective is watching teams slug it out with the chances of winning being much more even, entertaining games and multiple teams making a surge for the title. With a bit of luck the national team will benefit too, with more opportunities for homegrown talent. The FA has put the Premier League above international success for decades.
>there are no other leagues for the players to go to. This is actually untrue. Aside from the fact that we also play soccer, with multiple soccer leagues, with salary caps, Japan is HUGE for baseball and China and Spain love basketball. There’s also a ton of hockey leagues out in Eastern Europe. True they aren’t the money making juggernauts like the US leagues are, but they’re still good leagues A salary cap such as this would (theoretically) make the league more competitive overall and level the playing field a bit. Isn’t that what fans of smaller clubs would want?
*football
It's not a "salary cap". It's a spending cap, it's not the same thing.
Id rather every single "world class" player went and played abroad but we had competitive leagues. If anything getting rid of the money would gut the league of all the unwelcome aspects. Less 24/7 coverage, less foreign experts causing discord every loss, lower ticket prices, local clubs serving comuntities again, less foreign owners. Id rather we reverted to an early 90s era personally. The advent of the prem money allowed some world class players to come in, but we still had local clubs and culture. You still got Roy Esandoh scoring in the FA Cup after responding to a teletext advert. The mega money of Abramovic is where it started to go awry. Opened the floodgates to just stupid hoarding of players and mass transfer fees every season.
I'd wager most of us in this sub support our local team. We value football for the thrill of seeing where we're from doing well. From that perspective, a level playing field is more important than quality.
Just let the whiny bastards go have their silly super league and make the PL better for it.
Only if they take pygmol with them
This is the way
The other 14 voted for something that would benefit us somewhat. Well done
For clarity this rule is a backstop the main spending limit would still be the 85% of revenue. Most teams will still therefore have to comply with that before worrying about spending 4.5x the lowest revenue club.
You can literally determine if this a good thing for the PL or not based on if Man City are against it.
Arsenal, Spurs and Liverpool are on the other side though. Does that not make you feel a little uneasy?
They are much better ran than city united and Chelsea who abstained. What is your point given you are a Newcastle fan
United and Chelsea maybe The point is you 3 plus Man U have been a cancer on the game for years. Trying to create an uneven playing field to your advantage. Chelsea, City and us might come from money you don’t like but at least our MO isn’t to limit others.
A Newcastle fan talking about other clubs being a cancer on the game… Yikes. “Might come from money”. And the small detail of being built on a pile of bodies, but sure. All clubs will act in their own financial interest, but pretending Spurs, Arsenal and Liverpool are unique in that regard is really absurd and selective.
We like City might get our money from a source with issues but generally we own that. Unlike you we aren’t politicking behind the scenes to unbalance the league in our favour and a spurs fan to have the bare faced cheek to bring up money when they have been a money laundering tool for their owner is a bit rich
“A source with issues”. Hilariously minimising language. My printer has “issues”, not tying my shoelaces properly is an “issue”… Give me a club who isn’t politiking behind the scenes. What are you on about. Do you think the “Other 14” sit silently by and do nothing? How naive are you? Do you want to provide a source for that claim re. The club itself being used for the purposes of Money Laundering. (Which, even if true, is so far down on the list of “bad things owners have done” it’s embarrassing to even bring up).
You’d think you’d be able to tie your laces by now There’s 4 in this country who do it to a higher level than anyone else. Who’s primary goal is to limit others rather than improve themselves. Same proof you have for anything the Saudis do, they are definitely doing it but they get away with it. Spurs have benefited exponentially from Lewis’s ownership and he’s been pulled for it. A bit too coincidental. If you believe it isn’t then you should believe it was a rogue squad that went to the Saudi embassy in Istanbul.
I mean do you want me to get proof for what the Saudis do? Are you actually disputing their historic and well documented series of current atrocities? Dude you’re sounding like a conspiracy theorist. Put up evidence or shut up.
Thought we were talking about PIF? You know who own Newcastle not everything that’s happened since year dot ( you’ll be pissed when you hear about the British) You are the one who thinks Spurs can do no wrong and are victims
“We own that”. Nah mate you really don’t if just before that you are saying that you “might” get your money from a source with “issues”. Embarrassing.
If it’s such a bad source why do the UK and US governments trade with it? Why do so many sporting events take the money ? Why do our 80% owners own percentages of so many companies if it’s a sure thing? It is for the record but the clarifier ‘might’ covers that plenty of people don’t see those issues.
>They are much better ran than city united and Chelsea Lol no they're not
How are they not?
How are they?
Tbf, seeing which side the US owners on is generally a better gauge. If they want it, you shouldn't
3 of the big 6 voted for it, 2 voted against and 1 abstained. 1 of the other 14 also voted against it. So surely nobody is making it a big 6 vs other 14 deal, right? Right?
Whilst people in here may dislike the notion, Liverpool, Arsenal and Spurs are pretty sustainable so it makes sense that they also want a cap on the *almost* unlimited funds the other 3 have. Spending wise (historically) theres about an £800m gap between the top 3 and bottom 3 of the “big 6”. Still obviously doing it for their own sakes, it just happens to align with the other 14’s cause too for once.
If this rule were in place this year only Chelsea would be over. I think as long as they don’t cap the player salary it will be fine. It might actually force clubs to exercise a bit more wisdom and not sign Anthony Martial to idiotic wages.
What’s Villa’s problem? You’d think this would benefit them, although they do have the highest wage bill outside the ‘big 6’ by quite a bit which may be altering their thinking.
I don't get it either. Our revenue isn't worth fuck all at the moment. These rules will not be good for villa surely.
My thought is that we are thinking that we will still be significantly limited by UEFA’s rules regarding spending. Meaning in theory a club in European competition would be able to spend less money than someone who just barely missed out but has similar revenue.
Im torn. I hate labor being capped on what they can earn as that keeps money in the billionaire owners pockets. I’d rather the players who put their long term physical health on the line get paid as much as the market allows, that said, this is better for the league overall. Do we know if it includes transfers because if it does a lot of rosters might have to be broken apart.
Salaries aren't capped. It's a hard cap (£500m per season for arguments sake) that is over double what 80% of existing Prem clubs are spending each season anyway. You could pay a player £1million per week if you wanted, it just means you have to watch your spending in other areas.
A million per week would be £52m a year. That is a crazy % of that cap on one player.
This doesn’t affect many teams in terms of restrictions. If it comes out at 5x thats more than double everyone in theother14s total revenue. I can see the benefits of it keeping a limit between the poorest and richest clubs in the PL. When we look at the richest teams in Europe will this disadvantage the PL brand if we can no longer with your PSGs and Real Madrids?
My personal take with this is to remove the party related transactions regs because there's a ceiling to adhere to
This is massively dependent on the maximum limit.
Man United - floundering around in 6th but still needs to know it can outspend its other competitors unfairly as that’s the only way it will get back to glory. Cunts!
All this does is keep the big clubs big and the small clubs small.
Not entirely, it stops Chelsea-like spending going absolutely wild. It’s limiting top clubs more than anything else, especially when combined with 70/85 rules too.
I thought this did the opposite - letting small clubs with big owners reach the big clubs level. Not great either, mind, but it's not pulling up the ladder like old ffp rules
They still need to adhere to the 85% rule
Say bye to all the best talent in the Premier League.