I only realised a few weeks ago when the Liverpool board started harping on about it until then I was also in the dark. But until we know the rules in full and what the penalties will be we can only speculate.
Image rights should just be included in the contract, it's just another way for the greedy bastards to con even more money. By the wage cap I meant the player can only earn so much from the club, no loopholes.
They do have a salary cap in rugby league. But it's the same for all clubs, although it has just changed and those providing England internationals are given slightly more. There was some controversy when a Wigan players wife was employed in an admin role on double her playing husbands salary. So I think whatever the rules they will get round them. Imagine Rooney on £1m per year and his wife club sec on £6m.
Sadly true about the split of TV monies in Spain. Mumblings of the PL going a similar way when Liverpool want to do their own deals in relation to foreign TV rights. Tip of the iceberg? How long before the top six or so in the PL break away and negotiate their own TV deals home and abroad?
Isnt that exactly what Man City's owners have done? Anyway, I think the rules centre around not making a loss on day-to-day expenses rather than outlays on players or paying off outstanding debts. This is the reason the likes of Inter with a billionaire owner who has invested more than any other in history sold top earner Eto'o in the summer. In that respect I (assume) we're ok whereas Man City do not generate enough income to cover 10 players on 100k a week.
Has always been the the same in Italy when every single game played for every Serie A club is available on pay per view. There are now moves to make it an even playing field but unsurprisingly the Seven Sisters are against it.
It is, but ours did it to save the club and are aiming to get us to break even as soon as possible, they might even recoup their money over time, whereas Man City's owner are just throwing money at the club, with no realistic chance of ever getting their money back, or even covering their losses.
hopefully that will coincide with the day that Murdoch transfers his Premier League 'sponsorship' from England to a full-time Euro League. How I would love to see what is left of Wigan, Bolton, Wolves and the like on that day!
so in reality, what is their objective? money laundering or something even more disconcerting? i cant believe that they are so silly as just treating it as a rich man's plaything!
Wasnt it the case that they had never refused anyone under this system? Not sure if it still is but it seemed to be pretty much lip-service.
If they do want to sell up, they'll probably have to give it away, as even f they're really successful, their wage bill commitments will probably exceed the value of the club.
from whats been said, the debt is Paid by the Allams and only £250,000 is left as debt (maybe that has gone now also). whatever the amount This has been a gift to the people of Hull. Mr Allam said. i dont agree with regulations on debt. clubs spend what they spend. BUT, MY BIG BUT....any club that goes into administration from willful miss-spending should suffer automatic relegation from that league. Nevermind this mamby pamby 10 pts lark. Automatic relegation would make many owners think twice......i would hope.
it wont happen as PL rules state that they need 14 club votes for it to happen. its like turkeys voting for christmas.
according to richard scudamore it will only happen with a 14 club vote. all murdoch can do is threaten to slash the cash on a future deal. then that might change the whole ball game. for now its set in stone to a club vote.
