[h=1]Clubs to discuss spending limits[/h]Wednesday 5th September 2012 15:15 Premier League chairmen will on Thursday be presented with a range of possible financial controls to limit spending by top-flight clubs. The league's top executives have produced a discussion paper on financial controls for the chairmen to consider which could eventually lead to clubs being forced to break even every year - or face sanctions. It would mean a serious blow to clubs such as Manchester City and Chelsea who have return significant losses in recent years. There is strong support at other clubs for such controls - Wigan chairman Dave Whelan on Wednesday said measures to cut spending were needed urgently, while Manchester United originally sparked the move at the league's meeting earlier in the summer. No decision will be made on any measures on Thursday - instead two groups of 10 clubs, each with clubs mixed up to reflect size and region, are to be formed to discuss the options in more detail. Whelan's own club Wigan have also operated at a loss - the Latics returned a net loss for the year ending May 2011 of £7.2million - but even he is in favour of the controls. Whelan said: "This proposal has come from Manchester United - I think City haven shaken them up a little bit - but I think there should be some controls on spending. "Some clubs are spending way more than they can afford and get into trouble - look at Portsmouth. "The Premier League is so big and powerful and there is so much money around that the clubs try and chase it. Something has to be done so we will support these measures." United's chief executive David Gill has been one of the driving forces behind European clubs accepting UEFA's financial fair play rules for clubs in the Champions League and Europa League to only spend what they earn, and he wants the Premier League to follow suit. The Football League have also introduced a similar system into the Championship and Gill believes the top flight should bring in similar measures. Gill said last week: "A lot of clubs would be happy just to introduce the financial fair play regulations into the Premier League now, some wouldn't, but that's a debate that has to have happened. And it will happen. "If you look at it we've got financial regulations in the league below us, the Championship, and the competition above us, the Champions League, so we need to do it. "The Premier League being the best league in the world, the most commercially effective league in the world, I think there's a real opportunity to introduce some sensible rules that effectively improve and enhance the long term or medium term financial stability." At least 12 of the 20 top-flight clubs ended the 2010/11 season in the red with Manchester City's losses of £197million dwarfing even Chelsea's £68million and Liverpool's £49million. Critics of financial fair rules argue that it will forever favour those clubs such as Manchester United and Arsenal who make a profit and rule out wealthy benefactors such as Roman Abramovich and Sheikh Mansour putting money into clubs.
Sensible and agreeable on all fronts except competitiveness. We'll simply end up with the "big 4" again who's success is guaranteed by virtue of their ECL income, which enhances their spending power.... and on. The prize money from all aspects of footballing (ie non commercial) success would need to be shared in a more proportionate way to avoid a 4 tiered system again (Champions League, Europa League, Premier League (others) and newly promoted relegation fodder). I'm not saying that's hugely different from now but the boundaries are blurred and change between tiers can be bought but real, financial constraints would create more defined strata of clubs. Man City, Chelsea won't agree to the FFP (without enough loopholes to allow the cash to be injected by some means) but Man U (and a lesser extent arsenal and Liverpool) won't want to share their money (CL prize money or TV due to being more saleable teams for global viewing). Watch this space for the big teams to start scrambling over each other....
Hard to disagree with any of that Matt. The bigger boys will still be the ones that benefit in the long term though.
Exactly right 9s. They hold all the political power so I reckon they'll will get the rules that still allow them to prosper. I worry that we have left our run a bit late and are 2-3 years behind meeting this perfectly in terms of branding and stadium.
Exactly. Whilst I agree spending needs to be controlled, this will only favour the current bigger clubs and stop the likes of us from even trying to compete for midtable finishes. The big clubs will get bigger, and the smaller ones will just stand still.
I reckon that capital spending on improved/new facilities won't be included - otherwise every club would be stuck with what they have in terms of stadium, training ground, academy etc. The rules will be about day to day living within means, but I guess there will be a long(ish) period for clubs to fall into line.
Agree about the long term assets and desperately hope you're right about the time to fall in line. I'd suspect there's more pressure on making sure we're in a new stadium with increasing attendances that cover the wage bill before these rules kick in than worrying about what we're spending now.
There will be some kind of ratio of capital debt as a % of turnover annualized - but if you are given 25 year mortgages, stadium costs should be spread over at least that time span too. The critical balance will be PL/Sky/gates/merchandise vs operating costs. Given that a sky money alone is going up to something like £60m a season next year, staying up is pretty important. It's also good that, as far as I understand it, we have no other debt outstanding. But agree overall, this just entrenches those who get Champions League cash at the top.
It would never happen but there could be a way to limit clubs on various fronts so that, over a long period of time, things might become more equal and any team could move up or go down. But that would have a big impact on how commercial the game is and how much the English leagues could compete with foreign leagues.
I would like a flat limit on spending not related to turnover. Also revenue sharing could be an option like in Yank sports. Otherwise the rich will stay rich and the poor will stay poor. Of course Man U bought it up, they dont want any more teams to do a Man City and challenge them.
I was just going to mention the way the Yanks do it - but then again Yanks don't have their whole organization (team) RELEGATED, that is why they have their system that way. For the most capitalist country in the world, the Yanks do it in a funny way where they think that the teams are being "democratic" by allowing the poorest of the teams to have the best picks first, etc. But the whole team never gets to see failure in the way of relegation, so they're never about the team, it's about the individuals.....
Even more reason for a new stadium with these ffp rules coming in. Announcement can't be far away surely
