Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Premier League agrees new financial regulations

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Premier League agrees new financial regulations



    The Premier League says its clubs will be punished with a points deduction if they breach new spending controls.


    Each team will not be allowed to make a total loss of more than £105m over the next three seasons and must limit their player wage bills from next season.

    "If people break the £105m we will look for the top-end ultimate sanction range - a points deduction," said Premier League boss Richard Scudamore.
    The rules are designed to improve the financial sustainability of clubs.
    Investment in areas such as stadia and academies will be exempt.

    The aim is a 'break even' model similar to the Financial Fair Play regulations introduced by Uefa for sides in European competitions. The FFP allows only a £38m (45m euros) loss - significantly less than the Premier League's new limit of £105m between 2013 and 2016.

    Agreeing to cost controls marks a major change for Premier League clubs - they made cumulative losses of £361m in the 2010-11 season - and Scudamore is adamant the system will be enforced.

    "As with all things in our rulebook, you will be subject to a disciplinary commission," the Premier League chief executive warned clubs.

    "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."

    Scudamore confirmed there would be an "absolute prohibition" on teams reporting losses of more than £105m over the next three years, with the first sanctions possible in 2016.

    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.

    It emerged that the vote for the financial regulations could hardly have been closer with only 13 of the 20 clubs voted in favour, with six against and Reading abstaining.

    The 'yes' vote only narrowly achieved the necessary two-thirds majority of the 19 votes cast.

    It is understood that Fulham, West Bromwich Albion, Manchester City, Aston Villa, Swansea City and Southampton all voted against. Chelsea, who had initially been viewed as opponents of financial fair play regulations, voted in favour.
    "A new owner can still invest a decent amount of money to improve their club but they are not going to be throwing hundreds and hundreds of millions [of pounds] in a very short period of time," said Scudamore.

    "While it has worked for a couple of clubs in the last 10 years, if that's going to be done in the future it's going to have to be over a slightly longer term without the huge losses being made.

    "I think at £105m you can still build a very decent club with substantial owner funding but you have to do it over time, not in a season."

    Chelsea won the Premier League two years after Roman Abramovich acquired the Stamford Bridge outfit, and Manchester City's title success came three years after Sheikh Mansour's takeover.

    Any club making a loss of above £5m a year will have to guarantee those losses against the owner's assets, which should help prevent the situations that afflicted Leeds and Portsmouth.

    "In some ways that's the most significant part, this is a three-year rolling system of secure funding - it's one year at the moment," Scudamore added.
    Clubs whose total wage bill is more than £52m will only be allowed to increase their salaries by an accumulative £4m per season for each of the next three years (2013-14: £4m, 2014-15: £8m, 2015-16: £12m).

    However, that only applies to revenue centrally distributed by the Premier League - essentially TV income - and does not cover extra money coming in from increases in commercial or matchday income.

    The 'short-term cost control' measure applies solely to clubs with a player wage bill in excess of £52m in 2013-14, £56m in 2014-15 and £60m in 2015-16.

    West Ham's co-owner David Gold said that the proposals for controls had received backing of the majority of chairmen.

    "We have all voted and it was overwhelmingly supported, not by all the clubs - some are a little concerned - but the vast majority of the clubs voted in favour," he explained.

    "It's not a salary cap, it's a restraint on over-spending. If clubs increase their revenues then they can increase their spending.

    "We have got restraint, that's the important thing. What's driving the whole thing is we've got to avoid another Portsmouth."

    Minister for Sport Hugh Robertson commented: "I am pleased that Premier League clubs have agreed further financial regulations that will help ensure they are run on a more sustainable basis.

    "The Government has been clear that we want clubs to be on a secure financial footing for the long-term health of the game. This is a welcome and positive move."

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/21374699

    #2
    Fulham, West Bromwich Albion, Manchester City, Aston Villa, Swansea City and Southampton

    I can make sense of City voting against the regs..but why the other 5.. I'm stumped.

    Comment


      #3
      It could lower their already small transfer budgets?
      The times they are a changin'.

      Comment


        #4
        well these rules are less strict than ffp, which the european teams have to oblidge by, it basicaally stops one of the smaller teams getting a rich owner and jumping them up the league like city did.

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by Baracus View Post
          Fulham, West Bromwich Albion, Manchester City, Aston Villa, Swansea City and Southampton

          I can make sense of City voting against the regs..but why the other 5.. I'm stumped.
          Fulham and WBA have been against any form of financial regulation since the start. Al Fayed has been pretty vocal about the fact that the new rules will prevent another Fulham from happening.

          No idea why the other four are against it. Maybe their owners are hoping for a windfall from some random billionaire and think that this might make it unattractive to sell.

          Comment


            #6
            Wouldn't this prejudice clubs which currently have small wage bills? Why not set it against top 6 clubs so it allows some degree of later competitiveness if someone decides to invest?
            Was muß, das muß.

            Comment


              #7
              Because it's not there to reign in the big clubs or make an even playing field, it's there to stop out of control owners sending clubs broke.

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by EwarWoo View Post
                Because it's not there to reign in the big clubs or make an even playing field, it's there to stop out of control owners sending clubs broke.
                It will also help protect the status quo with the bigger clubs.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Villa are also making quite big losses at the moment. So that might have something to do with their vote.
                  *Except Michael, who died.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    it basically plays into the hands of man u and arsenal and to a lesser degree, spurs and ourselves. chelsea and man city plus any other smaller clubs that a rich benefector might buy to build a club will all be held back.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      It does us no favours - the damage has already been done by City and Chelsea and all this will do is ensure we will never be able to do the same, i.e. invest massive sums over a short period. A case of shooting ourselves in the foot IMO.
                      "Its not about the long ball or the short ball, its about the right ball." Bob Paisley

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Its not a short term solution though. Its medium and long term thinking. In 10 years when this current cycle of players at Man City and Chelsea have all gone, itll be a level playing field for everyone. It just all depends on the revenue that a club can generate. As we are making huge strides in that department, I can see it helping us quite a lot. Same with Arsenal and Man Utd.
                        *Except Michael, who died.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Originally posted by Tee View Post
                          It does us no favours - the damage has already been done by City and Chelsea and all this will do is ensure we will never be able to do the same, i.e. invest massive sums over a short period. A case of shooting ourselves in the foot IMO.
                          It practically guarantees United success.
                          Thanks very much for being ‘This Mornings’ Farmer’

                          Comment


                            #14
                            We aren't actually in too bad a position, our revenues are good and improving and we have managed to do a sizeable chunk of the rebuild prior to this coming in.

                            I think it could suit us believe it or not.

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Originally posted by rcasemore View Post
                              We aren't actually in too bad a position, our revenues are good and improving and we have managed to do a sizeable chunk of the rebuild prior to this coming in.

                              I think it could suit us believe it or not.


                              Once we get a better stadium adding to the other growing revenues we're generating, plus cl revenue, we'll be competing with the best.
                              Oh I don't know.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X