It seems to me, on the face of it, that it will slow up the "get to the top as quick as possible" plans of any future City's. However, will this simply mean that their billions will be directed into unparalleled training and scouting facilities, that few others will be able to compete with? http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/21374699
The plan has similar 'loopholes' in as much that "Investment in areas such as stadia and academies will be exempt." ,that so far seems to have been allowed (in City's case) to circumvent the essence of clubs 'breaking even'
Not really. Obviously haven't seen the detail but what is to stop.... say a company owned by the same family as the owners of the football sponsoring a team for.... picking a figure at random here...... £300m for x number of years and thus giving a healthy look to the balance sheet.
We forget that FFP is supposed to be about stopping clubs overspending and going under. Even allowing exemptions for building new stadiums and training facilities undermines that. Over reaching is the samething with the same result whether it's over investment in players or facilities. The whole thing becomes more of a farce everytime I look at it. It depends where you stand as to whether you'd rather a deeply flawed spending restriction rule to come in or whether you'd rather nothing at all if it's going to be badly implemented.
Agreed. These blatantly "incestuous" sponsorship deals have to be shut down if the PL are serious about trying to level the playing field. It's currently a glaring loophole. I'm all for going down the road of youth development etc, but if all the billionaires firepower is in future going to be turned in that direction, it will inevitably create another massive inbalance.
Some cynical people are saying its because thats the size of the loses City and/or Chavs currently have. Arsenal, Liverpool, Man U and Tottenham tried to stage a coup with the new rules that would of seen an uber strict "break-even" clause instead of £100m loses being allowed that would of massively swung the balance of financial power in the direction of these 4 clubs. These for clubs are basically the main people responsible for these new financial regulations and lobbied the PL and FA extensively to ratify and implement them. It is no coincidence that taking the recent yearly average revenues earned by these four clubs, you notice that they are amongst the top money making clubs in the league, usually making profits but usually always breaking even, whereas clubs like City and Chelsea often incur big loses (although Chelsea did post their first yearly profit recently since Abramovich took over but thats probably the exception rather than the rule due to their fantastic Champions league campaign of which they were the eventual winners).
The whole thing's bullshit, for me, especially from those that are essentially attempting to pull up the ladder behind them.
I think that it's only to be expected that each club will vote for whatever they perceive to be best for themselves. The question is, can the PL eventually fine tune this so that it represents all the clubs?
I seriously doubt these rules will do anything to prevent teams from buying trophies. If they do, it will only be until the same teams buy changes in the rules.
WSC has another take on it: the clubs that will be most affected aren't those at the top, but those directly below them. Everton's coffers are only filled by their cut of the Sky TV deal and from player sales, whilst the likes of Fulham, Wigan and Stoke are supported by (modestly) wealthy owners - trying to break even every season is an additional factor against what they can achieve as it further limits the players the funds they can put aside for transfer fees and wage bills. The elephant in the room in the cases of these clubs is what they need more than anything else is a game against one of Sky's usual suspects, as the added revenue they get from a televised game against Man Utd or Chelsea will help them be their cannon fodder the following season, and the season after that, and the season after that.
Anybody have any idea how this would have affected Prem teams over the last 3 years with the obvious exceptions of City and Chelsea,surely nobody has lost 105 million in the last 3 years or am I way off the mark
This is a couple of years out, but gives some guidelines: http://www.myfootballfacts.com/PremierLeagueFinances.html Also, this should cover some of the nitty gritty: http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/may/23/premier-league-accounts-profit-debt
If only 3 clubs at this time fall outside the proposed limit, it has to be no, or am I missing something.
