It needs a level playing field not FFP rules. FFP rules could easily by bypassed. The only way I can see it being done is to have an aggregate salary cap, i.e. a team has say £85M to spend on player salaries but they can share it as they want. In other words they could have 25 players at 3.4 million each, 11 players at £7.5M each and make up the numbers with £400 quid a week semi pros or 4 players at £10M each and share the remaining £45M between the other 21 players. It would stop teams keeping highly paid bench warmers. In order for it to work there world need to be agreement throughout europe/taxation equality but IMO it would be a sensible way forward.
Salary caps are as easily avoidable as any other measure. There is nothing to stop the likes of Abramovich from topping up a players wages with payments into numbered offshore accounts. These are next to impossible to trace, if done properly. Certainly, it's unlikely that Premiership accountants would be capable of doing it. There are also other methods, such as various benefits in kind, etc.
Fair comments and I agree it would be good to get some sort of FFP going - but wouldn't the fear be that Man Utd go back to dominating? Even before the rise of Chelsea and City we never troubled the Premership title race - maybe we would now if they were clipped back - maybe not The Prem incidentally love the fact that City and Chelsea have come along and stopped the Prem becoming a one horse town, stuff like City overturning Utd in the last minute of the last day is a a marketing man's dream anyway, overall I do support a move towards FFP.
The fact is it would make it more possible. If we handled things well and did things correctly we'd be well rewarded for it. As it stands Chelsea can £70/80mill in a January window to get themselves back where they want to be and City can also offer ridiculously high wages and fees to get what they want. It's impossible to see how those two clubs would still be up there if they'd been run to break even(minimum). Clubs should rise and fall over periods of time and currently United, Chelsea and City are stuck to the top with money is ruining the fairness of competition and if FFP can get rid of 2 of those clubs then excellent, it's just a shame that they'll never have the balls to make a wage cap and make everything far more even.
They are talking about it YV. Premier League ponders salary cap or financial fair play as new cash loom David Conn guardian.co.uk, Thursday 6 September 2012 21.33 BST The Premier League is considering the introduction of rules to control escalating player wages before the huge influx of cash from the next television deals in 2013-16. Potential rules presented to the clubs by the chief executive, Richard Scudamore, at a meeting in London on Thursday include a salary cap or a form of Uefa's financial fair play rules. Some clubs feel strongly that the new TV deal, with £3bn already secured from the UK rights, should not be swallowed up by a new wave of pay inflation. But any rule change requires 14 of the 20 Premier League clubs to agree and it is not clear whether sufficient clubs will be in favour of strengthening financial regulations. Manchester United and Arsenal, both of whom made profits in 2010-11, are understood to favour rules similar to Uefa's, which require clubs to move towards breaking even financially, not making losses. On Thursday Arsène Wenger supported that view, the Arsenal manager saying: "You should just get the resources you generate, that will determine the real size of the club." However, some clubs see that as a move by the two with the greatest income to outspend everyone else. Manchester City, whose path to becoming Premier League champions has been achieved by the club's Abu Dhabi owner, Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed al-Nahyan, subsidising huge losses, are thought unlikely to support new regulations, even though they have consistently said they are aiming to break even. City argue that a level of investment by an owner to bankroll losses is necessary to lift a club to success on the field and commercially. Other clubs, including Fulham, Everton, West Bromwich Albion, Newcastle and Tottenham Hotspur, are also understood to question whether clubs need new regulations, rather than being trusted to manage their own affairs. Despite income rising every year, pay to players has risen steadily over the past decade. In 2001-02, clubs spent £1.1bn, 62% of their income, on players' wages. In 2010-11, the most recent year for which financial figures are available, income grew to £2.5bn but players' wages amounted to £1.8bn, 70% of the clubs' turnover. Despite massive commercial growth and the Premier League's growing popularity abroad, only eight of the 20 clubs made a profit in 2010-11. West Ham United's chairman, David Gold, is vocally in favour of introducing rules to limit wages to help clubs make a profit, as is Dave Whelan, the Wigan Athletic owner. Peter Coates, the Stoke City owner, said all clubs would be helped by having to conform to agreed rules. "I hope this view is widely shared: we cannot have all the new money going in inflated wages and payments to agents," Coates said. "There is no need to do that; we will have the same players, they won't get better because we pay them more. It should not be beyond us to find a formula which works for us all." Ellis Short, the owner and chairman of Sunderland, who lost £8m last year having spent 77% of the club's income in wages, is understood to favour restricting salary increases to 10% in each of the new TV deal's three years. The clubs have agreed to work on the proposals in two separate groups of 10, then for all 20 to meet to consider the issue in detail at the end of September. The Premier League did not want to comment in detail until further work has been done; a spokesman confirmed: "There is a process under way to examine potential further financial regulation."
what a curious list of clubs that might be opposed. I would have though all of those would be all for it.
Surely these proposed salary caps would only be effective if they were Europe wide. Otherwise the Premiership's top players will simply piss off to somewhere like Spain or France where they can earn more money. To the detriment of the Premiership.
you would think those team's would back it,as they are the teams that could finish in the top4,and with some form of regulation would give them a chance of winning the PL
Fulham's wage bill is pretty damn hefty, from what I can recall, so FFP would be the worst thing for them (as well as QPR and West Ham) Whilst most of the attention is aimed at teams Man Utd can't match on the pitch...sorry, I meant to say the reckless spending at Chelsea and Man City, a lot of clubs are spending beyond their means just to tread water. Part of the reason Villa are in the doldrums now is because MO'N was offering huge wages for players who always went into a tailspin in March so they barely scraped into the UEFA Cup (and the players he's signing for Sunderland won't have cheap wages), along with the likes of Fulham, QPR and West Ham who are treading water or even battling relegation/fighting for promotion with some reckless spending. Stoke's wage bill has been increasing a lot lately, with Crouch and Owen coming in, yet has their income really increased to allow it?
Fair comments YV, i've never been in favour of a salary cap, but as was famously said 'something must be done'.
Well as I've pointed out, we're 6th in revenue and about 6th best team, so we're pretty much doing what would be expected cap or no cap, although I agree we might be closer to Chelsea and City, then again we might be further behind Arsenal and Man U.
Exactly, so if it doesn't damage us but possibly saves us some cash then i would've thought we'd be for it. Of course, i can't guarantee such rules would actually save us some cash. Surely newcastle with their big old ground should be for it?
one day the gravy train will stop,the players get more money,charges go up for fans, less fans can afford it and stop going,then what will happen to that club?
With the new stadium, there should be an opportunity to at least hold the prices down. Not sure we would get 55k at current prices?
The point is they could never break even on football revenue alone, so for all those saying we should have broken the bank on transfers/wages to get us in the CL, we still couldn't have competed financially with those clubs because their budget is not based on any normal definition of sensible finance.
Would you like to tell me when since the start of the EPL and ECL as the playing field ever been even?
