Premier League agrees new financial regulations

[cream]

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.

Disagree, if a multi billionaire was to buy the club, all they really need to do is to build a new stadium. We'd be in as good as position as anybody in the league.

[dom9]

Unlike the UEFA regs, there does not appear to be an excpetion for capital expenditure. At least it's not been mentioned in the publicity so far.

[Vermilion]

Disagree, if a multi billionaire was to buy the club, all they really need to do is to build a new stadium. We'd be in as good as position as anybody in the league.

That's the point though, sure they could do that, which would take a few years, then they'd have to wait to make the most of the extra money and start buidling a squad, remember it took Citeh years with the money they pumped in, this will have the effect of slowing things down even if a billionaire was to buy the club now.

I'm not saying it's a bad thing btw, i'm undecided tbh, in the long run and with these owners though it will be good for us imo, so long as we keep improving as a team, and not losing out on new fans to other clubs..

[Alex]

There is I think. For things like Academies and Stadiums.

[dom9]

That's the point though, sure they could do that, which would take a few years, then they'd have to wait to make the most of the extra money and start buidling a squad, remember it took Citeh years with the money they pumped in, this will have the effect of slowing things down even if a billionaire was to buy the club now.

I'm not saying it's a bad thing btw, i'm undecided tbh.

It took City 3 years to win the league. It's not much at all.

It took Roman 2 years at Chelsea.

I'm glad it will put a stop to all that.

[Vermilion]

It took City 3 years to win the league. It's not much at all.

It took Roman 2 years at Chelsea.

I'm glad it will put a stop to all that.

Add to those the wait for building a new stadium, and then benefitting from the extra income, and your talking 5 or 6 years all told.

3 years is quite a wait these days in football, considering the money spent, most managers only come into clubs with 3 to5 year plans to win titles on normal investment.

[dom9]

I'd rather win nothing ever again than rely on a dodgy billionaire to bankroll the club in a morally questionable manor.

Self sufficiency is the only way forward for me.

[Imy]

what does this mean:

"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

[Vermilion]

I'd rather win nothing ever again than rely on a dodgy billionaire to bankroll the club in a morally questionable manor.

Self sufficiency is the only way forward for me.

What if we found a non dodgy one ?

Agree self sufficiency is the right way, it must be for every club though imo, or every season it's as though they get a head start, fans will get fed up of not winning eventually, so we have to win as well as be self sufficent, otherwise in time we will be effected adversely as a club by not doing so.

If this stops Citeh or Chavski bidding for and paying stupid idiotic money to players though, it's going to help a lot. imo. So long as they don't circumnavigate the problem by way of crooked sponsorship deals.

[dom9]

What if we found a non dodgy one ?

Agree self sufficiency is the right way, it must be for every club though imo, or every season it's as though they get a head start, fans will get fed up of not winning eventually, so we have to win as well as be self sufficent, otherwise in time we will be effected adversely as a club by not doing so.

If this stops Citeh or Chavski bidding for and paying stupid idiotic money to players though, it's going to help a lot. imo. So long as they don't circumnavigate the problem by way of crooked sponsorship deals.

Good luck with that.

[Vermilion]

Good luck with that.

[peekay]

what does this mean:

I am a bit confused by that. It appears to be really restrictive. For example if we want to increase Suarez salary by 50K that eats up 2.4 million out of the 4.

Also dont players have salary increments clauses? This will eat up into the 4 million.

[Imy]

I am a bit confused by that. It appears to be really restrictive. For example if we want to increase Suarez salary by 50K that eats up 2.4 million out of the 4.

Also dont players have salary increments clauses? This will eat up into the 4 million.

£4m broken up over a week is not really that much (well not in the context of what top players earn)

Maybe i'm reading it wrong though

[dom9]

It's nearly 8%, which us well above the pay increases most of the rest of us get.

[peekay]

It's nearly 8%, which us well above the pay increases most of the rest of us get.

With respect to pay increase expectations, PL footballers don't operate in the world most of us live.

Secondly, these are the annual wages according to the BBC article:

Chelsea - £191m (up from £174m in 2009-10)
Manchester City - £174m (£133m)
Manchester United - £153m (£132m)
Liverpool - £135m (£121m)
Arsenal - £124m (£111m)

So 4 million does not equate to 8%.