Premier League clubs vote in favour of new financial fair play model at crunch meeting Top-flight clubs also approved a salary cap as the league supported far-reaching spending reforms that limits clubs' losses to £105million over a three-year period Premier League clubs have voted in favour of introducing a domestic financial fair play model from next season. The breakaway group of Arsenal, Liverpool, Manchester United and Tottenham failed to push through a strict 'break-even' rule at a showdown meeting in London on Thursday afternoon but club bosses agreed to a compromise system that limits a club's losses to £105million over a three-year period. The top-flight clubs also approved a cap on wage increases as the Premier League imposed the first spending controls by a first major European league. It was agreed that player salary bills can rise only by set amounts each season from 2013/14 to 2015/16. In the first of a three-year cycle, wage bills can rise by £4million, in the second year by £8m, and by £12m in the third. The cost control measures apply only to clubs with wage bills in excess of £52m in 2013/14, £56m in 2014/15 and £60m in 2015/16. It is not yet known which clubs supported the new measures but 14 of the 20 votes were required to push through the reforms at the shareholders' meeting. At the last full shareholders' meeting in November, Arsenal, Chelsea, Everton, Liverpool, Manchester United, Newcastle United, Norwich City, QPR, Reading, Southampton, Stoke City, Sunderland, Swansea City, Tottenham, West Ham and Wigan had all indicated that they were in favour of stricter financial regulation. This came after four breakaway clubs â Arsenal, Liverpool, Manchester United and Tottenham â attempted a coup in a bid to push through a strict break-even rule. The four clubs most likely to oppose the introduction of cost-control measures at the meeting in a London hotel were expected to be Aston Villa, Fulham, Manchester City and West Brom. Insiders say that the Premier League FFP system will be a more "sophisticated" version of Uefa's, which comes into force next season and limits owners to covering losses £38.9 million losses over the first three years. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/21374699 The Premier League says its clubs will be punished with a points deduction if they breach new spending controls. The 20 teams will not be allowed to make a loss above £105m over the next three seasons, while from 2013-14 they must limit their player wage bills. "If people break the £105m we will look for the top-end ultimate sanction range - a points deduction," said Premier League boss Richard Scudamore. He confirmed a disciplinary commission will deal with any broken rules. "Normally we stay silent on sanctions as the commission has a free range, but clearly if there is a material breach of that rule we will be asking the commission to consider top-end sanctions."
We owe no money. Anyway, this is all pointless. Chelsea and city can easily get around it with their owners.
Those figures don't seem that much of a control to me. Pretty sure Portsmouth weren't far away from that £105m in three years figure!
Of the 20 top-flight sides, only Manchester City, Chelsea and Liverpool have reported losses of more than £105m over the last three years, according to the most up-to-date published accounts.
The top clubs already have to keep losses under 38 million to play in europe and who else other than man city and Chelsea would rack up 150 million in losses so what's the point in this? It's not going to affect 1 team.
The significance in this agreement is not really in the detail. For the first time, the members of the Premiership have agreed that they nedd to codify their rules regarding finance AND take sanctions against members who do not comply. They may not be the most stringent rules. They may even be fairly easy to circumvent. However, it is a start and that is the thing to celebrate.
This^^ As has been suggested, maybe some will find ways around it, but that's not the point. As a society, we still need laws even though people break them and it's the same here. Let's get a reasonable code of practice in place and do the best we can to enforce it fairly. I'm sure there would be an outcry from the majority if some are obviously trying to circumvent the rules.
