We've touched on this in a number of threads. Premier League clubs met today to discuss a number of proposals. Surprisingly, according to this Bloomberg article, Fulham are one of the few against 'fair play' on wages - http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-09-06/majority-of-premier-league-teams-in-favor-of-fiscal-controls The reason for our dissension escapes me - we don't compete all that well on wages across all leagues, surely UEFA wide controls gives us a more level field. Or am I missing something ??
Well I'm glad that it appears our dissension won't matter, but it does confuse me, as we enforce our own wage cap that puts us at something of a disadvantage with the other clubs in our own league. UEFA-wide regulations would put us on a level playing field, but I think the proposals are for regulations specific to the PL, C58? That's what the article alludes to anyway. I would speculate that the proposed PL regulations are stricter than they are elsewhere, which would be a viable reason for opposition, but surely the bigger clubs would oppose that too? Very strange.
We say it'll put clubs at a disadvantage, true yes? I think that we have a cap could be that Mo wants the club to be able to stand on its own 2 feet plus kudos we're on the right track early. As a business. mo would be pretty upset about posting a £311m loss!
Ah ha, are you saying craving that the Club's position is "we've got our house in order, so the rest can go hang" ?
Hadn't thought of it like that C58 but that could be one angle. I don't know if the club make a profit as such now. We did post a loss of £90m a few years back I seem to remember so I'm not saying we are perfect yet!
Yeah, on the reveue side we've been in the black for two years. The last published accounts were for 2010/11 and we showed a £7m profit.
The 20 PL clubs are meeting next week to discuss possible financial controls. They have been split into two groups of 10 on a geographical basis, with the southern group to meet on Monday and the northern group on Wednesday. Apparently the divide is to allow more time for open debate but it seems crazy to meet on different days. Ideas include adopting UEFA's financial fair play system where clubs must break even, or clubs only being allowed to spend a maximum percentage of their annual income on player costs - for example 70pc. However, the option most likely to win approval is clubs having to be able to guarantee they can operate for several years in the future rather than just one. Basically it means that a club will have to prove that it can guarantee funds to pay players wages for the length of their contracts. This shouldn't be an issue for us because of our contract policy but not so for those that entice players with lucrative 5 year deals. So we'll probably be inclined to accept this 'guaranteed liability' scheme as opposed to the 'fair play' one which MAF was against. The sanctions for breaking the rules are unlikely to be as drastic as UEFA's system which threatens to exclude clubs from European competition if they do not come close to breaking even. Instead, in the Premier League, a transfer ban or fine is much more likely to be the agreed punishment. Personally I can't see the point of a fine since by the time it's realised that a club can't meet it's wage bills, it by definition has no money. The whole thing now seems to be paying lip service to the idea of financial control (to satisfy/avoid Government intervention ?) and in reality is a whole load of nothing.
With tons of money due next year from new TV money, club chairman are due to meet later this month to try and agree a plan. In this article by the Mail, they say Mohammed Al Fayed is against it because, "it will put off potential future buyers". Interesting ! I don't quite follow their logic though. Surely if the plan is to keep the money in the club and away from player's wages and agent's fees, that would be the more attractive proposal for a buyer. Here is the article - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2227488/Roman-Abramovich-Glazers-aiming-stop-footballers-earning-mega-money.html Incidently, MO looked quite old and frail when he was walking round the ground before yesterday's game.
The 20 PL Chairmen met today to discuss three proposals relating to greater control of club business. The proposals were : a) Fair Play, b) Wage Restraint and b) Contract Guarantees. Financial Fair Play would be similar to UEFA's own idea and would look to bring in controls to force clubs to break even, a proposal which Wigan chairman Dave Whelan is backing strongly. Wage Restraint would be looked at instead of an outright salary cap, which many believe would not be legally viable, but would instead restrict the percentage of how much a club can add to their wage bill each year. Contract Guarantees is a proposition that a club's owner, should they leave, would still be responsible to cover the wages of any highly-paid players signed during their tenure. However the Chairmen failed to reach agreement today. As we know MAF is against any regulation of this kind but regardless, the expected majority required (14 of the 20) didn't happen. Premier League executives have gone off to come up with a compromise set of proposals to be discussed when they next meet in February. The plan is still to have some form of fiscal controls in place before the start of next season (and of course before the bonanza of new TV money). http://www.london24.com/sport/arsenal/chairmen_split_over_finance_control_with_arsenal_man_utd_for_with_fulham_against_as_west_ham_and_swansea_chiefs_speak_out_1_1695281
According to the Daily Mail, MAF may take legal action if the PL controls are approved ; The other clubs opposing the current proposals are: Aston Villa, Man City and West Brom (with Everton likely to follow suit).
I must not know all the facts, as I have literally no clue as to why clubs like us, Villa, WBA and Everton would oppose these rules.
One of the problems with wage caps etc is that rather than level the playing field, they pull up the rope ladder that some clubs have climbed, preventing others from following suit. For example, if the restriction is on how much you can increase your wage bill by, then a club who already pays big wages can grow their wage bill at a greater rate than one with a smaller one (obviously, 10% of squillions is a lot more than 10% of a pittance). This will mean that, potentially, the gap gets bigger and bigger. We may not like clubs like City throwing huge amounts of money at their squad, but if that isn't permitted the top four (or whatever) easily stagnates and becomes permanent. To be honest, I have mixed feelings about the whole thing. It was one of the things that I feared when the Premier League was created 20-odd years ago, a widening and permanentising (not a word, sorry) of the gap between big and small. But the thing that I think is more destructive is the Champions League gravy train. That's what enables the top clubs to pull away financially from the rest, and in other countries it's even worse. In the minor leagues across Europe, the ones who only get one team into the CL, it has allowed the biggest sides to turn dominance into monopoly and grow hopelessly out of the reach of the following pack. It will never happen, but I'd love to see UEFA return to just allowing one team per country (plus holders) in the tournament for Champions. I'd quite like it go back to a straight knockout, but they'll never agree to that either. And UEFA knows that if it ever tried to turn back the clock on that one they would face a breakaway from the top clubs, who wouldn't countenance the certainty of missing out on the big Champions League payout from time to time.
Ah ok, that makes sense, thanks Captain. Still, it would be strange for the league to want to introduce something like that (again, I probably don't know all the facts). I share your views about the Champions League too. Although I am pleased that European competition makes the success margin a little wider, i.e. there are tangible rewards for finishing in the top 6, rather than the league winner getting everything. Something must be done about the gravy train aspect though, but it's just gone too far.
Captain's point makes sense why small clubs might react. Also becomes apparent that some clubs like Wigan etc are just happy to be in PL, there are others of the same size like us who have stronger ambitions... As a lot of the clubs are companies there is little that can be done in terms of regulation. Another formula is needed to safeguard that wealth is distributed widely... Can it be done?
The Pl Chairman certainly have something to focus theire minds on - TV for season 2013/14 has gone over the £5bn mark, and rising
At a meeting today the PL club chairmen agreed in principle on a "break even" policy. However the exact details of the spending controls has yet to be agreed - specifically around how much wealthy owners can put into the club to cover losses. They have now asked PL executives to bring back detailed plans on the spending controls for the next meeting on February 6, and on proposals to cap wage rises for players in the short term. No real change as yet, therefore.
The Premier League clubs today agreed to new financial controls to start next year, to co-incide with the TV £5.5bn bonanza. Only 13 of the 20 clubs voted in favour but that was sufficient to carry the day because of Readings abstention. As you know Fulham (that is, MAF) have always been against the proposals. The key changes are: "Under the new rules, clubs could face points deductions if they fail to comply with new financial regulations that will cap the amount that can be spent on player wages, and will limit club losses to £105m over a three-year period. The rules will come into force from next season and are intended, the league says, to curb wage inflation and encourage greater stability among club owners. Clubs whose total wage bill is more than £52million will be able to increase spending only by £4million per season for the next three years, though the cap does not apply to extra money earned from commercial or match-day income." The changes however are a compromise: "The regulations are much more liberal than the financial fair play rules imposed by Uefa, with which clubs in European competition already have to comply. Had the new Premier League rules applied over the past three years only three clubs would have been affected, Chelsea, Manchester City, Liverpool and Aston Villa." Here is a link to a more detailed report - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/competitions/premier-league/9855388/Premier-League-clubs-vote-for-spending-controls-and-could-lose-points-if-they-fail-to-comply.html
I can only assume we were against it due to the capacity of the stadium, which is probably why MAF has decided to use the Dembele and Dempsey money to expand as soon as possible. I'm very surprised QPR weren't against it though, as there's absolutely no way they would be able to sustain paying such inflated wages and transfer fees with such a small stadium.
This is ok, but as the Captain says, it will only make the gap between the clubs at the top and those at the bottom wider. If it stops clubs going under then I suppose it's worth doing, though.
To me this is a load of public relations hog wash. Saying "we have fiscal constraints" is just a way for the teams to try and squeeze the players and agents for lower wages. But in the end, the big teams will still shell out outrages fees and salaries for top players, and since so many of the owners are gazillionaires fluffing their egos rather than operating teams like real businesses, nothing will change.
