Future of football -70% of turnover

[Rocket]

fluctuations could be reduced by using an average turnover figure for a number of years

[Red_Al_77]

How can this be enforced?
If liverpool bought players on the basis that we will reach the quarter finals of the CL and budgeted for this level of revenue from the CL within the 70% rule taking into account the new player's wages. In the event we got knocked out, our wages level may breach the 70% level. This could act as a disincentive to bringing in players and may therfore force clubs to focus on generating revenue from elsewhere e.g merchandising. This is all well and , good for the big clubs, but what chance would Wigan have for example with the size of their fanbase?

I suspect it would be based on the previous year's turnover. It ain't gonna happen but the spectre of Chelsea is really getting up UEFA's nose.

[JRG]

fluctuations could be reduced by using an average turnover figure for a number of years

Again this would put newly promoted clubs at a disadvantage in relation to the Man U's of this world as they generate a high proportion of thier turnover from their large fan base.

[Resu]

I think it`s the G14s (or whatever number they are now) way too try stopping the likes of Chelski. As you say it will only widen the gap. If you on top of that let the clubs sell the TV rights for their games (like Italy and Spain) it will be very hard for a smaller team to make it to CL.

[Rocket]

Again this would put newly promoted clubs at a disadvnatage in real;tion to the Man U's of this world as they generate a high proportion of thier turnover from their large fan base.

true, but in reality, the whole idea is based on more than one objective, its not just to create a more level playing field, its also to protect clubs from over spending and going bankrupt ala Leeds united.

[Red_Al_77]

It would be far easier to set an upper limit to transfers. Say no club can spend more than £50mil net in any one year on transfer fees and wages for new players.

[JRG]

I suspect it would be based on the previous year's turnover. It ain't gonna happen but the spectre of Chelsea is really getting up UEFA's nose.

Any turnover based restriction would be highly damaging to small clubs who would be prevented from any effective investment strategy by their size. They would find it even more difficult to grow than is currently the case.

This needs to be thought through and not applied as a knee jerk reaction to counter the buying power of Chavski.

[Resu]

Again this would put newly promoted clubs at a disadvnatage in real;tion to the Man U's of this world as they generate a high proportion of thier turnover from their large fan base.

But you can say that the Scum "deserves*" their fanbase and the money that brings, but Chelski has done nothing to deserve the money Roman brings.








The Scum deserves nothing but relegation, but thats another topic.

[Rocket]

But you can say that the Scum "deserves*" their fanbase and the money that brings, but Chelski has done nothing to deserve the money Roman brings.

.

exactly, because deep down, we all know, that it wouldn't have taken all that much, for a team with even less history than chelsea to be back to back league winners.

bolton? Fulham? Wigan etc etc.

[JRG]

But you can say that the Scum "deserves*" their fanbase and the money that brings, but Chelski has done nothing to deserve the money Roman brings.








The Scum deserves nothing but relegation, but thats another topic.

True, the manc's have worked hard at developing their franchise, they therefore deserve the revenue they get from their commercial efforts.

Any form of cap would probably work against investment in the squad for small clubs unless it was backed by a wages cap that would allow a more level playing field in terms of deals for players (excluding tranfer fees of course).

[Boogs]

Laws to curb the super-rich clubs

From the Evening Standard

Chelsea will be forced to slash their spending on players by a drastic £100mil a year under new regulations proposed by UEFA.
As litesport revealed in September, Europe’s governing body has been working with sports ministers on introducing legal measures to curb the spending of all of the continent’s rich clubs in a bid to make football more competitive.
The radical new proposal will aim to narrow the gap between rich and poor clubs and stop teams like Chelsea running up massive losses to buy up the best players.
UEFA plan to introduce a regulation limiting clubs to spending a maximum of 70 per cent of annual turnover on players wages and transfer fees. In Chelsea case this would mean cutting last years bill on players and salaries from £210mil to £102mill.
The ruling would have a devastating impact on the spending at Chelsea who splashed out £276mil on buying players and made losses of £228mil since Roman A bought the club in 2004. Even by removing the transfer fees and salaries of Didier Drogba (signed for £24mil and earning £60,00 per week) Michael Ballack (free transfer a £2mill signing on fee and £130,000 a week) and Andriy Shevchenko (£30mil fee and £118,000 a week), Chelsea would only reduce the current bill by £72mil.
UEFA are determined to bring practical economics back to football in a bid to stop what they are calling an “arms race” in spending on players.
UEFA communications director William Gallard today said “This is not just aimed at one club. It covers clubs from Chelsea and Real Madrid to clubs in the second division. A lot of members of the European Parliament want more drastic action like a salary cap but that is not practical. We don’t just want one or two clubs capable of winning leagues, we want eight to ten.”

[JRG]

Already a thread on this mate.

[spud_gun]

Interesting.

I'm fairly sure that Chavski and the other clubs who this could potenitally impact by any decision such as this will have an army of lawyers on stand-by.