Premier League chairmen set to vote at Thursday's fair play showdown meeting

[Tuscans]

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.

[seanthevillan]

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.

[bertlambshank]

Mr Carbon Neutral tell them to get fucked.

[fredm]

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.

[atticus snood]

Who cares? It's all fucked up anyway,

[Yossarian]

Who cares? It's all fucked up anyway,

Er, I do. That's why I am here.

[Toronto Villa]

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.

[atticus snood]

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?

[Monty]

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.

[Des Little]

Let's tell them we will vote if the rest of them allow us to stay up

[Ad@m]

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.

[Monty]

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?

[Ad@m]

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.

[Monty]

Well, why are Everton voting for it? It wouldn't seem to suit them at all either.

[cdbearsfan]

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.