Heroes & Villains, the Aston Villa fanzine
Heroes & Villains => Heroes Discussion => Topic started by: Tuscans on February 06, 2013, 06:53:43 PM
-
Chelsea are set to back both a wage increase cap and a compromise financial fair play deal at Thursday's showdown meeting of all 20 Premier League chairmen, but Manchester City are one of four clubs ready to vote against plans.
The Premier League executive need an agreement from 14 clubs to make changes to the rule and the backing of the Stamford Bridge club should enable the necessary amount of votes.
Two proposals have been put forward - a long-term broad acceptance of UEFA's FFP break-even policy, and a shorter-term salary cap where clubs will be allowed only to increase wages per year.
Manchester United's David Gill, Tottenham's Daniel Levy and Arsenal's Ivan Gazidis head those in favour of the long-term solution along UEFA lines while it is understood that Roman Abramovich's Blues will agree to a system that obliges clubs to break even but allows owners to cover some losses.
It now looks likely that the cap will only affect those clubs whose total bill is higher than £52m so that promoted sides are not prevented from improving their squads.
Furthermore, spending money earned from clubs' individual sponsorship deals on wages will not be restricted. That can be significant - in Manchester United's case commercial income totalled £117.6m last year and their wage bill £160m.
Arsenal, United, Tottenham and Liverpool will still argue that wealthy owners should not be allowed to underwrite any losses, but in order to push FFP through will have to settle for a compromise, where up to £105million over three years can be covered in order to maintain the Premier League's competitiveness and its attraction to a global TV audience.
Opponents of FFP argue that the system maintains the status quo and favours the biggest clubs with large stadia and high commercial income with Fulham, West Brom and Aston Villa joining City as they look set to vote against it.
Might of already been posted so apologies if so....but surprised me slightly that Villa are opposing the financial fair play rules.
-
I'm not surprised - if the rules have been drawn up by chairman factions or something similar, which seems to me to be the implication of this article, then we should vote against them. Restricting wages but not including sponsorship within that surely makes it even easier for the top clubs to hoover up all the best players in the league.
I haven't read all of UEFA's proposals but the clubs should only be able to vote on them specifically - if they are given the choice at all - and not be allowed to come up with their own tailored version.
-
Mr Carbon Neutral tell them to get fucked.
-
Article by Martin Samuel the other day when he said if this is brought in then they can give Man U the title with Arsenal runners up for the next 10 years, it is skewed so much in their favour. Said the middle of the table teams who voted for it were just voting to get an easy life with plenty of money and no chance of ever winning anything.
-
Who cares? It's all fucked up anyway,
-
Who cares? It's all fucked up anyway,
Er, I do. That's why I am here.
-
as long as deals like the one signed by Man City where they sign a massive deal with essentially themselves is allowed to happen then the whole system is screwed. If you make financial fair play a component of revenue then the big clubs remain that way. A cap will never be introduced where there is a minimum spend and maximum spend irrespective of revenue, which is how it should be.
-
Who cares? It's all fucked up anyway,
Er, I do. That's why I am here.
Perhaps you should write Randy a stern letter?
-
So who's voting against it? Oil wealth vulgarity, Mohammad al-Fayed, the Smethwists and ourselves, the worst-run club in the division? To be honest, our leadership know so little about long-term football strategy that their very opposition to FFP is enough to make me support it.
-
Let's tell them we will vote if the rest of them allow us to stay up
-
This has been discussed on here before.
The reason we're voting against it is because if it comes in you can kiss goodbye to us winning anything in the next 20 years, if not ever. It's just a case of the big 4/5 clubs pulling the drawbridge up behind them. The loophole with the sponsorship money is an added kick in the nuts I don't think we've seen or heard of before which will only act to further strengthen the clubs at the top of the league currently who get the largest sponsorship deals.
I hope Faulkner manages to convince enough other clubs to stop this going through.
-
See, would there not have to be provisions in the regulations to stop this drawbridge being pulled up? If not, why would clubs run miles better than we are vote for it?
-
See, would there not have to be provisions in the regulations to stop this drawbridge being pulled up? If not, why would clubs run miles better than we are vote for it?
Most clubs in the division fall in to one of two camps. Those at the top challenging for Europe and those in the bottom 10 places trying to avoid relegation.
The ones at the top are happy with their lot and want to keep things as they are.
Those at the bottom want to avoid relegation without bankrupting the club.
FFP supports both of these objectives.
Unfortunately we fit in to the group in between that is currently not good enough to be challenging but firmly believes we should be. If this gets in we won't stand a chance.
-
Well, why are Everton voting for it? It wouldn't seem to suit them at all either.
-
It's just a way of ensuring that the status quo stay on top for all eternity.
If you want genuine competition, introduce a salary cap.
-
Well, why are Everton voting for it? It wouldn't seem to suit them at all either.
For how many years have Everton been scraping the barrel now while they watch everyone else spend money catching up on them? Put this in place and it gives them a huge amount of breathing space.
-
But they evidently have ambitions to break into the top tier yet generate nothing like the revenue of the top teams.
-
Also, the plans seem to be a lot like the one the Bundesliga has in place, and that league is much more competitive than ours. Granted, Bayern win every other year, but every year other than that it's anyone's game.
-
But they evidently have ambitions to break into the top tier yet generate nothing like the revenue of the top teams.
I don't think the current owners have realistic ambitions to break in to the top four at all. I'm sure they say the right things to the fans but their number one priority is to sell up ASAP. This will cement the value of the club for them so that's why they'd vote for it.
-
Stop televising it. It's the only way it'll ever go back to being competitive. Either that, or let the top few go and form their superdoopereuroleague, with which there is neither relegation from nor promotion to. Anything else will always simply be the wealthiest getting their snouts in the trough first, whilst the rest wait politely behind to share out whatever's left, knowing that if they rock the boat they won't be allowed even anywhere near the trough. The FA were instrumental in the creation of this monstrosity. Where are the guardians of the game now? Sat on their greasy palms in their shiny new palace, awaiting tribute from their immoral barons whilst their humble subjects eke out merely a subsistence, year after year. Arseholes, every last one of them
-
What's to stop the top 20 clubs start a Euro league? With the time difference they could actually have every game televised live over the weekend.
A break in the winter and they take the show to South America or Australia. We could then have Euro league 1,2,3 etc.
The Premier league would be shot and would revert back to the football league. What goes round.
-
What's to stop the top 20 clubs start a Euro league?
FIFA and UEFA at the minute - they sanction all competitions and won't allow it. Now of course that only theoretically stops them, the clubs could still organise their own competition but FIFA and UEFA would probably then ban any players involved from competing in FIFA and UEFA tournaments, so the best players would then need to make a choice between getting millions playing in the Euro Super League or representing their country at the World Cup.
-
What's to stop the top 20 clubs start a Euro league?
FIFA and UEFA at the minute - they sanction all competitions and won't allow it. Now of course that only theoretically stops them, the clubs could still organise their own competition but FIFA and UEFA would probably then ban any players involved from competing in FIFA and UEFA tournaments, so the best players would then need to make a choice between getting millions playing in the Euro Super League or representing their country at the World Cup.
It'd be almost worth it to see Blatter & Co fall on their arses when the players chose the money!
-
Well, why are Everton voting for it? It wouldn't seem to suit them at all either.
Seems a bit daft.
If Everton lose Moyes they would suddenly become vulnerable to relegation, so they are thinking short-term.
Two-thirds of the clubs in the Premiership are vulnerable to relegation, so they should vote against it, but they all think they are fire-proof right now and creating a football caste system protects them against Championship wannabes.
They think that can create a virtual NFL franchise system without anyone noticing.
-
I think this
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2013/feb/07/football-transfers-european-commission?CMP=twt_gu
sounds a better idea than this FFP system which is anything but fair.As noted it basically means if your Man U for instance you have HUGE commercial revenue, £559 Mil shirt sponsorship with GM alone !!! and huge stadium then no one will ever be able to compete with you.It's essentially the old school clubs of Man U , Liverpool stopping another Chelsea or Man City.Whilst you could argue on the fairness of a billionaire taking over a team and investing in it this FFP is just as unfair.Maybe whilst they are in discussions they can discuss Man United having it's last 39 FA cups games televised which at currents rates is £250k per match extra revenue !!
I believe Randy and Fayed know they are going to lose this vote hence Randys lack of Spending and Fayed turning his loans to Fulham into equity making them debt free.
Why are Everton interested ..who knows seemingly under the assumption this will help with wages and help them stay competative. Can't see it myself
David Gold has said FFP has reached an agreement ..so looks like us and any team not in current top 4 and Liverpool just got shafted.
-
Well it's been voted in,the bunch of twat's.
-
Good stuff. Expect numerous iffy commercial deals to miraculously appear from the top sides to help offset the loss. £105m is now the cap on losses, so all you have to is ensure whatever deal you come up with is able to cover that. It should have been a min and max wage cap irrespective of revenues. The top teams can spend to the cap and the other teams must at least spend the minimum. This ensures owners don't just pocket the excess by spending as little as possible. All this has done is kept things exactly as they are while the PL makes it self feel better appearing to take real action.
-
Thing is regardless of what happened, it still comes down to how our club is run and currently the focus on the playing side of things is completely unacceptable.
-
There is only one truly massive club in England and that is Man Utd, they are followed world wide and have a commercial value second to none, all the other so called big clubs just have owners that are willing to bankroll them. If the Arabs at Man City or Abramavich at Chelsea walked away they would revert to being small London clubs, the way that the football league has allowed wealth of owner to determine the make up of the top four for the last five years is depressing.
-
It should have been a min and max wage cap irrespective of revenues.
Surely the only thing that would be achieved by that is that anyone who could earn higher than the cap would head off to Russia, Ukraine, Germany or Turkey?
The level of quality would drop and interest and revenue would drop with it.
Why would voting for that be in the interest of any of the people making the decision?
-
So this new rule basically means Man U will never be challenged again..well done
-
Randy heard that there were going to be financial rules and decided to be a big girly swot and do too much too early, leaving us more Portsmouth than Swansea.
-
I agree with the club. Things will change they always do. if we impose a cap then the richest will always stay the richest and would make it nigh on impossible for anyone to get up to that level. I agree that something must be done relating to the spiraling wages but is going back to something we once got rid the right way?
-
It should have been a min and max wage cap irrespective of revenues.
Surely the only thing that would be achieved by that is that anyone who could earn higher than the cap would head off to Russia, Ukraine, Germany or Turkey?
The level of quality would drop and interest and revenue would drop with it.
Why would voting for that be in the interest of any of the people making the decision?
It would have to be a UEFA initiative. UEFA would need to get the collective backing of all of their members to avoid players just going where there wasn't a salary cap. The horse has bolted it appears but the new "solution" doesn't change anything.
-
I agree with the club. Things will change they always do. if we impose a cap then the richest will always stay the richest and would make it nigh on impossible for anyone to get up to that level. I agree that something must be done relating to the spiraling wages but is going back to something we once got rid the right way?
Good article here
Richard Scudamore, the chief executive of the Premier League, said the regulations his clubs have introduced should not be likened to Uefa's financial fair play, and indeed the most striking first impression was how much more slack the 20 clubs have cut for themselves. Uefa's financial fair play rules restrict clubs in European competitions to making total losses of €45m in 2012‑14, while the Premier League's limit, agreed after nine months of discussion, is £105m over three years. That is still a great deal of money to lose between 2013 and 2016, given the £5.5bn bonanza expected to arrive in TV income alone.
The rules, the £105m loss and the measures restricting players' wages increases, are clearly a compromise. A deal has been done to reach a middle ground between clubs such as Manchester United, Arsenal, Liverpool and Tottenham Hotspur who wanted a strict implementation of Uefa's €45m limit, and other clubs, including Manchester City, who wanted no restrictions at all.
Scudamore argued that these rules will protect the Premier League clubs financially in advance of this deluge of cash. The £105m is only allowed to be lost if an owner has guaranteed it and paid the money in. Losses not guaranteed by owners will be limited to the much more modest £15m over three years. That, the Premier League said, will prevent "another Portsmouth", the notoriously insolvent club that, in administration again, lurched into another tortured twist, with a new bid made to challenge that of the supporters trust, even as the current top 20 clubs were meeting.
The compromise is also broader, between a vision of football that has clubs living within their means, and one that wants owners buying them and pouring in cash to buy success. The compromise means the English game is still open to that model, but such an owner is limited to £105m over three years, plus investment in youth training and infrastructure. Scudamore specifically acknowledged that the rules will not allow turbo-fuelling like that of Manchester City, where Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed al-Nahyan has injected around £1bn since 2008 to elevate City from ninth in the Premier League to champions.
There will be sanctions for breaching the rule, and Scudamore said they will push for it to be severe, a points deduction if the £105m is seriously overspent. The aim is to allow owners to put serious money into clubs, but not quite so serious as Roman Abramovich and Sheikh Mansour have unleashed into their football ventures.
The wage limit is a little odd, and illustrates the greatest frustration with the conduct of these reforms. Most clubs' main aim is to ensure they do not blow the forthcoming vast fortune on ever-inflating players' wages. They have agreed to limit wage bill increases to £4m in 2013, then £8m, then £12m, out of the Premier League's TV income. Clubs, though, can increase wages as much as they like from owners' money up to the £105m overall, or from commercial revenue – or ticket income.
The Premier League says clubs will not be seeking ways to evade the rules because they themselves have introduced them. But this rule builds in an incentive to raise ticket prices – at a time when there is an almighty outcry about the high cost of supporting football.
There lies the missed opportunity. These rules do something to restrain overspending, although it is notable they are aimed at a Manchester City project, which at least sees money going in, rather than the Glazers' milking of Manchester United for £550m to pay the interest and costs of their own takeover. This has been pushed for by the American owners of United, Arsenal and Liverpool, who bought English clubs as investments, and have no intention of spending money on them.
They, and the other Premier League clubs, three of whom will be relegated at the end of the season, have been allowed to introduce these rules with no reference to the wider game and no involvement of the governing body, the Football Association. They are designed to guard against spending the prospective windfall on player wages, but not tied to any broader discussion, perhaps a commitment to reduce ticket prices, or increase investment in the grass roots. There has been no great consideration of wider issues affecting football, and the clubs have voted from their own self-interest or peculiarities of opinion.
Scudamore said they have been on "a journey" from "a fairly low threshold of financial regulation" to a set of rules requiring solvent, non-criminal owners and a reasonably sustainable way to run clubs. Many believe that journey should go a lot further, not just dampen player wages, and the millions owners can spend on the clubs they have bought.
Chelsea and Man City agree or not ,and even us for a time where only able to compete with outside funding.In Chelsea and Man City's case the success it brought has increased the awareness of the clubs and in turn their revenue to compete with United.This rule stops that happening again.It means the clubs are happy to have Man U dominate as long as they can feed of the scraps.
-
It should have been a min and max wage cap irrespective of revenues.
Surely the only thing that would be achieved by that is that anyone who could earn higher than the cap would head off to Russia, Ukraine, Germany or Turkey?
The level of quality would drop and interest and revenue would drop with it.
Why would voting for that be in the interest of any of the people making the decision?
It would have to be a UEFA initiative. UEFA would need to get the collective backing of all of their members to avoid players just going where there wasn't a salary cap. The horse has bolted it appears but the new "solution" doesn't change anything.
It does exactly what it sets out to do. Limits the possibilities of the next Chelsea, Man City, Blackburn Rovers or us when Lerner was willing to spend money.
It's not trying to do anything further than making sure the biggest clubs remain the biggest clubs. And it does that perfectly well.
-
100% Agree Dave
It's a sad day for the Prem League..
-
They talk about a points deduction as punishment, but it would be a good 12 months further on before they could really do so.
An overspending club could theoretically win the league and the Champions League before their accounts for that period are revealed.
-
I think you are going to see alot more commercial deals ,Man U have been signing up sponsorship like mad in the last few months.And attempts to bypass this like this
http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story/_/id/1271135/paris-saint-germain-secure-%E2%82%AC150m-a-year-deal?cc=5901
-
And how useful is a system with owners can underwrite the losses? So, what actually changes?
-
It's the death of competition.
-
The Premier league, ever since its inception, has always been about naked self interest. Indeed, if I remember correctly it only came about following a threat of a break away by the usual suspects here, in Spain, Germany, Italy et all to form their own league closed to all outsiders.
Despite Sky continually telling us its 'the greatest league in the world', its probably as uncompetative as its ever been, with 2/3 clubs competing at the top, 2/3 sniffing about for 4th place and the rest trying to avoid relegation.
This decision is clearly designed to maintain the status-quo and will do so very well. :(
-
Mancini has a little cry about not being able to spunk someone else's money:
"I do not agree," said Manchester City's manager. "If I am a rich man I want to spend all my money for my team; it's my job. It's only my personal opinion but I don't agree with the idea in general or these rules.
"We need to buy good players. If you want to buy good players you have to spend money. This isn't only for us, it's the same for every team but we will work hard and find a different way."
While clubs with annual player costs of more than £52m a year will now be limited to a £4m salary increase in 2013-14, they must also limit overall deficits to £105m over the next three seasons or face points deductions. These reforms promise to make it effectively impossible for a future billionaire club owner in the shape of City's Sheikh Mansour to lavish a fortune on their team in order to "buy" swift success.
"It is clear with this rule it is more difficult than 10 years ago," acknowledged Mancini. "In football, if you work well, you can find good players without maybe spending £30m on one individual, but it is also true that every time Manchester City move for a player, if his value is £10m, Manchester City will be asked for £30m. There should be other rules for this because sometimes you want to buy a player for £8m but it's £25m-£30m for Manchester City. This is the problem."
From the Grauniad:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2013/feb/09/manchester-city-players-salaries (http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2013/feb/09/manchester-city-players-salaries)
-
Not all 20 clubs voted. If reading had nt abstained from the vote the motion would never have come to pass. It went 13 to 6.
-
This will preserve the status quo by not allowing any new entrants into the "big cub" group.
-
I can see why man city are against this. The really big money will only be generated by the clubs in the CL after this season, primarily those which consistently qualify for the knockout stages. They simply do not yet generate sufficient income from other sources to compete. Their attending fan-base could not cope with arsenal-type pricing. A ground expansion would seem expensive, much like building yet another new, bigger one. Their pull with overseas sponsors/"supporters" (I'm of the opinion that most of the rest of the world is currently quite surprised to learn that there's another club from Manchester) is quite minimal, hence the DIY ground-naming, with man u, arsenal, 'The Mighty Reds YNWA', chelski with ten years of blatant cheating, even spuds, seeming a more attractive place to put your hard-earned dollar, be it for sponsoring a shirt or just buying one. The drawbridge is pulling up, and the equivalent of £35m a season isn't enough to leap the ever-widening moat. Recent results now leave a pack of clubs chasing them down in the league, with CL qualification nowhere near a foregone conclusion. Failure to do so could lead to a very interesting summer at the new Maine Road. Perhaps they'll be the ones making the rallying cry for a euro league.
-
The Premier league, ever since its inception, has always been about naked self interest. Indeed, if I remember correctly it only came about following a threat of a break away by the usual suspects here, in Spain, Germany, Italy et all to form their own league closed to all outsiders.
Despite Sky continually telling us its 'the greatest league in the world', its probably as uncompetative as its ever been, with 2/3 clubs competing at the top, 2/3 sniffing about for 4th place and the rest trying to avoid relegation.
This decision is clearly designed to maintain the status-quo and will do so very well. :(
Indeed, the inception of the Premier League was the beginning of the death of football as a genuine competitive sport. I think this deal doesn't change much, it just underlines how many clubs are willing to do no more than make up the numbers just to keep their fingers in the financial pie. If you think about it, it's only the influx of money from Abramovich and then Mansour, that has given any semblance of genuine competition to the Premier League title recently. Without those it would have been a procession for United every year since Wenger lost his magic touch at Arsenal. To say it's a competitive league is a joke.
-
Indeed, the inception of the Premier League was the beginning of the death of football as a genuine competitive sport. I think this deal doesn't change much, it just underlines how many clubs are willing to do no more than make up the numbers just to keep their fingers in the financial pie. If you think about it, it's only the influx of money from Abramovich and then Mansour, that has given any semblance of genuine competition to the Premier League title recently. Without those it would have been a procession for United every year since Wenger lost his magic touch at Arsenal. To say it's a competitive league is a joke.
You only have to look at the attitude of clubs such as Sunderland and Albion, who haven't won a trophy since God was a lad, to the cups to realise the only things that matter to them are minimising any chance of relegation, no matter how slim it may have been to start with, and finishing as high as possible up the Premier League.
-
http://www.sport360.com/football/man-utd-pen-%C2%A3160m-training-ground-sponsorship-deal
Fair play you say ...