Premier League cost controls

[paul_e]

BBC report

This could be interesting.

Shocking news that Man City were one of the clubs who rejected the idea...

[Chris Smith]

Even more shocking that we're also against it, if the Football 365 report is right.

[bertlambshank]

It will never happen,all Randy has to do is sponsor the ballboys for £400 million a year.

[Mister E]

The telling sentence comes at the end:

There have now been six meetings of top-flight chairmen where cost controls have been discussed without any concrete decisions being made

There is an inherent disconnect between those with and those without, and - as in society - it is an almost-intractable issue.
I'm only sorry that I do not have some sort of solution to offer: there are, as Citeh have already found (with a shift of investment-funds from loan to stadium sponsorship), several easy ways to beat the FFP structure.

And as for not paying players and agents so much, which of the seriously-moneyed clubs will be the first to blink?

[eastie]

According to tv reports thre were 17 teams in favour and the three against it were man city, aston villa and Fulham.

[JUAN PABLO]

According to tv reports thre were 17 teams in favour and the three against it were man city, aston villa and Fulham.

yes  thats because Randys spending £250 million in the summer

[ClaretAndBlueBlood]

while I think football needs cost controls before it totally self implodes, this will make it harder for clubs to catch up with those already at the top.

the break even rule will favour those with the biggest income through gate receipts, prize money, sponsorship and tv money.

the capped % increase on wages will favour those already paying the bigger wages.

so the top 4 champions league place gets further away

[Ad@m]

while I think football needs cost controls before it totally self implodes, this will make it harder for clubs to catch up with those already at the top.

the break even rule will favour those with the biggest income through gate receipts, prize money, sponsorship and tv money.

the capped % increase on wages will favour those already paying the bigger wages.

so the top 4 champions league place gets further away

Exactly, which is probably why the Villa were against it.

From reading about it before it seems to be a similar rule to the European FFP rule which again is there to serve the teams already at the top.  If the league was serious about limiting the chances of clubs overspending they would introduce a salary cap rule like in the NFL. 

But they're not serious about it.  This is a corporate social responsibility campaign to try to make the general public think the recession is affecting football too, and a bit of propaganda to try to stop agents and players getting all of the new TV deal. 

This is all about maintaining the status quo.

[Steve R]

The only thing the rules will possibly change is the composition of closed shop at the top of the league. It will still remain the closed shop it has been since the expansion of the chumps league. Over time the PL will resemble a straight list of clubs by turnover even more than it does now.

I'd have preferred something that discouraged clubs from accumulating large squads of expensive players many of whom barely play.

Maybe something like a wage cap whereby at each club, a maximum number of players can be on 'no limit' wages, followed by a number that can be paid up a high, medium and 'standard' threshold.

It would still allow e.g. Manu to bid the earth for Messi should he come on the market, but would discourage the situation where someone like Sturridge hardly gets a game at a top four club but could actually make a telling contribution to an outfit that is trying to get there.

[onje_villa]

Definitely would be more interesting if things went the way of the NFL but they'd never do that. Things are basically going to have break-even "starting now" so clubs like City are surely waaaaay ahead of the game.

[Percy McCarthy]

Are there any other sectors where businesses are not allowed to run at a loss?

[Rip Van We Go Again]

David Gold was on Skysports saying he was for it.
So that makes me want to be against it.

[Percy McCarthy]

Yes, that made my mind up for certain too.

Similarly, he once made me a confirmed advocate of throwing beer bottles at cars.

[Dante Lavelli]

In my opinion what is also required is some sort of link between the lowest spending club and the ones at the top with huge turnovers.  Something like that your expenditure cannot be more than 100% than the club with the lowest expenditure for more than 3 season.

With the break even rules and something like the "link" described above it will ensure economic sustainability and also allow economic mobility. 

[ktvillan]

As others have said it's a case of the current elite pulling up the drawbridge behind them.   Even if someone tempts the Sultan of Brunei or Bill Gates into taking them over, the new rules will prevent him funding a rise to the top a la Chelsea, Man City, PSG, etc.  I suppose the big loss makers like Chelsea and Citeh may have to find a way to break even, but I'm sure they'll wangle it somehow. The closed shop idea was always the intention of that so-called G14 group of clubs back in the 90s and they are pretty much there now.  Which makes it surprising that so many "making up the numbers" clubs are in favour.    Talk about turkeys voting for Christmas.