It needs flushing but it also needs to be replaced with something that works otherwise there will be another Bury, Portsmouth, Darlington, Aldershot, Chester City, Airdrie and Leeds to name but a few.
It’s easy and our own very @Magdadlorian has said this multiple times. Escrow agreements by the owners which are null and void etc when breaches happen should be the way forward. For example PIF should be allowed to invest as much money as they like. But can’t take it out past a certain level to protect the club. I guess that’s easy for us to say because we are now owned by the richest owners possible but so what. They can spend how they please. And **** me we have suffered for decades anyways so **** it.
Not 100% sure on the dynamics of how it works regarding transfer fee's. But UEFA introducing a new version which allows a club to spend 70% of turnover on wages. That may be wages and transfer fee's but not sure. It's being brought in the way the did with FFP, it will start at 90% then gradually decline to the 70% over a few seasons. The major issue is this still protects the traditional clubs that have played in Europe for decades.
Cost Control UEFA’s objectives in adding the new cost control ratio were to: Provide a direct measure between squad costs and income to encourage more performance-related costs. Limit the inflationary impact of wages and transfer fees of players. Unlike the Stability and Solvency rules, the Cost Control rule does not have a predecessor in the FFP regulations. UEFA had previously recommended keeping wages below 70% of revenue, but this has now been formally incorporated in the latest regulations as one of the three formal pillars. This is interesting, as it is effectively the first time that UEFA has applied a salary cap, albeit a “soft” variant, while the financial sanctions could be described as a sort of “luxury tax”. The cost control requirement must be fulfilled by all clubs that have qualified for the group stage of UEFA’s competitions with wages above €30m (for all employees). Squad Cost Ratio Calculation A club’s squad cost ratio is calculated as the sum of: Wages of players and head coaches Player amortisation and impairment Termination payments for players and head coaches Agents’ fees and cost of other intermediaries Divided by the sum of: Operating revenue (adjusted for fair value, if required) Profit from player sales Other transfer income/expenses In this way, a club’s spending should be capped to 70% of the money it earns from football activities. For example, if the club’s total earnings are £400m, then its spending cap for the relevant expenses referred would be £280m, i.e. £400m x 70%.
Biggest scam going is the UEFA coefficient that gives massively more money to “established” teams with European pedigree. Utter knackers is that one. A total of €1.0 bln is available, which is then split into four elements: Participation €501m (25%) Prize money €601m (30%) UEFA coefficient €601m (30%) TV pool €300m (15%) Newcastle’s TV pool is adversely impacted by qualifying in fourth place, but the real damage to their overall earnings comes with the UEFA coefficient, where their €4.5m pales into insignificance compared to the other three English clubs: Manchester City €33.0m, Manchester United €28.4m and Arsenal €25.0m. The UEFA coefficient payment was introduced in 2018/19, based on a team’s performance in UEFA tournaments over the past 10 years, including bonus points for winning tournaments. This clearly benefits the established elite like Real Madrid, Bayern Munich and Barcelona, who all pick up well over €30m, having been rewarded (in some cases) by good performances many years ago.
Better that than this unfair nonsense.... they do plan to change it, but it will be exactly the same ****housery just based on the squad wage..... just another anti competition cloak.
It's rather fitting that the vile 6 threatened to break away and then low and behold following their 'change of heart' the Premier League all of a sudden starts getting hardball with the lesser clubs who've slightly over spent. A shot across our bow!
La Liga president Javier Tebas believes there is a "more than 50%" chance that France striker Kylian Mbappe, 25, will join Newcastle United in the summer after his Paris St-Germain deal comes to an end. (Goal) Miguel Almiron is set to stay at Newcastle United after Saudi Pro League side Al-Shabab failed to meet the Magpies' £30m valuation of the 29-year-old Paraguay winger. (Guardian) Aston Villa are considering selling academy graduate Jacob Ramsey to raise funds in order to comply with profit and sustainability regulations, with Newcastle, Tottenham and Bayern Munich interested in the £50m-rated 22-year-old English midfielder. (Athletic - subscription required) £50m lol
The likes of Chelsea and Man City will find some loophole as usual. Like some direct player sponsorships from some dodgy brand new company that nobody has ever heard of, meaning the player's income is vastly inflated vs what is officially recorded in the club accounts as 'salary'. Or agent fees part-paid by some other account, outside of the official club accounts. It's all just bollocks to make it look as though the governing bodies are doing 'something'.
As has been said repeatedly here, an owner should be able to fund whatever they want as long as the club isn't affected. Roman was allowed to loan Chelsea over a billion, interest free, then wrote it off. It's the fact they don't want that to happen that tells you everything. Chelsea by all accounts should be bankrupt but the owner made sure that wouldn't happen and now they're always in the elite. PIF could chuck £1bn at Newcastle "interest free" with an exit clause that writes it off, but now that's "unfair". It's just a protected hierarchy. Somebody needs to challenge it, legally, under anti-competitiion laws.
The thing about the UEFA cost control is that it's very leniently enforced. PSG took the absolute piss and got fined 60m euro... only have to pay some of it if they seem to be making some effort. You get "favourable" rulings if your club is overall deemed to be in good health, etc etc... Not like the PL, where it's now seen to have a bit of substance.
I'm astounded that it isn't being challenged - all of it, including the quite frankly remarkable coefficient bollocks. I'll be amazed if there are not conversations preceding legal action going on in the background - that might shape some change to the current "rulings".
How much do these 'journalists' get paid? And where do I apply for the job? I'm sure I could make up **** that is way more credible than their nonsense.
In relation to Chelsea basically taking the piss, and how they'll comply if/when they get back into Europe: One possibility is that they would simply make a deal with UEFA, as many other clubs have done, with a 3-year or 4-year settlement agreement, which would buy them some time, so long as they fully complied at the end of the agreement. Of course, they would also have to pay a fine, but looking at the most recent UEFA penalties announced in September 2022, the payments were not overly onerous, even for clubs that were far above the maximum allowed loss. Furthermore, only a small amount of the settlement was paid immediately with the remainder conditional on future compliance with targets. Boehly’s consortium might see this as effectively just another cost of doing business and worth paying if it allows them to build a squad capable of challenging at the highest level. Chelsea did actually recently agree to pay a €10m fine to UEFA for breaching FFP rules, though this was for submitting “incomplete financial information” relating to payments to agents during Abramovich’s ownership.
Actually I don't doubt Tebas would say that - the guy is utterly detached from reality and genuinely believes we're willing/able to throw billions of pounds around.
