FFP

[Demitri_C]

Yeah this is much worse for Ure. But who is suprised? The likes of newcastle and villa upsetting the apple cart so they need ways to protect the clubs like chelsea manure and spurs

[DB]

If it happens, more pressure to increase revenue. You wonder that Newcastle's state owners will get pissed off their hands are tied and walk away of they can't be successful (by not being able to knock their local rivals in the Gulf of their perch), to a lesser extent our owners too?

[sid1964]

If our club has no chance of competing or breaking into the top 4 based on these new FFP rules, why would our Manager (who is obviously very ambitious) want to stay with us?

[pauliewalnuts]

If it happens, more pressure to increase revenue. You wonder that Newcastle's state owners will get pissed off their hands are tied and walk away of they can't be successful (by not being able to knock their local rivals in the Gulf of their perch), to a lesser extent our owners too?

They'll have known that from the start, though.

Worth noting, this season Newcastle have played in the Champions League, got a new shirt sponsor which apparently is 40m a year (which was accepted as fair value precisely because they were in the CL, and got an Adidas shirt deal which allegedly has them in their 'elite' group of clubs).

So they're moving forward with their revenue. They already had higher commercial revenue than we do, and already have a significantly larger ground, which they are talking about making even larger.

We, on the other hand, are talking about shoe-horning in a couple of thousand extra seats over two years.

Where is the ambition from Heck, here?

[DB]

If it happens, more pressure to increase revenue. You wonder that Newcastle's state owners will get pissed off their hands are tied and walk away of they can't be successful (by not being able to knock their local rivals in the Gulf of their perch), to a lesser extent our owners too?

They'll have known that from the start, though.

Worth noting, this season Newcastle have played in the Champions League, got a new shirt sponsor which apparently is 40m a year (which was accepted as fair value precisely because they were in the CL, and got an Adidas shirt deal which allegedly has them in their 'elite' group of clubs).

So they're moving forward with their revenue. They already had higher commercial revenue than we do, and already have a significantly larger ground, which they are talking about making even larger.

We, on the other hand, are talking about shoe-horning in a couple of thousand extra seats over two years.

Where is the ambition from Heck, here?

But the rules are changing again. How this will play out, who the f**k knows, but you wonder this protecting the 6 is to stop any other attempt at a breakaway league.

[pauliewalnuts]

But regardless of any rule change, the one thing which is absolutely going to remain constant is the new to drive higher revenues.

The wages to revenue percentage has been mentioned, but that isn't going to change a huge amount if it happens, as we already have one of the highest percentages in the league.

We desperately need to boost revenue. Things like LG and TV and GA+ seats, yes, that certainly all helps, but we are going to be stuck with one massive problem which needs to change to unlock the next wave of income, and that's the stadium.

[pablo_picasso]

But the rules are changing again. How this will play out, who the f**k knows, but you wonder this protecting the 6 is to stop any other attempt at a breakaway league.

It's in part to protect the "Premier League product".

The status quo clubs bring in the most marketing money for the Premier League & the idea of selling Liverpool v ManC as a TV game to foreign audiences will bring in more money as trying to sell Burnley v Sheff Utd.

So it's financially in the best interests of the Premier League to keep the status quo as it is, just as much as it is in the best interests of the status quo clubs.

It's mutually beneficial for them to halt clubs like Villa & keep the status quo as it is.

[PaulWinch again]

So I may be missing something here but why would 14 clubs vote for this?

[Simon Page]

I wonder if anyone will ever try turning football into a sport; something uncontrolled and surprising. Probably wouldn't work.

[DB]

But the rules are changing again. How this will play out, who the f**k knows, but you wonder this protecting the 6 is to stop any other attempt at a breakaway league.

It's in part to protect the "Premier League product".

The status quo clubs bring in the most marketing money for the Premier League & the idea of selling Liverpool v ManC as a TV game to foreign audiences will bring in more money as trying to sell Burnley v Sheff Utd.

So it's financially in the best interests of the Premier League to keep the status quo as it is, just as much as it is in the best interests of the status quo clubs.

It's mutually beneficial for them to halt clubs like Villa & keep the status quo as it is.

Yes, enough competition to keep people interested but not enough to disturb the current status

[Gareth]

So I may be missing something here but why would 14 clubs vote for this?

Guess those at the top will want it to maintain the status quo but there are a number of clubs that have no interest in heading towards the top 6 but also happy to finish year after year in mid table so they may well follow the top 6 lead.

[pablo_picasso]

So I may be missing something here but why would 14 clubs vote for this?

Guess those at the top will want it to maintain the status quo but there are a number of clubs that have no interest in heading towards the top 6 but also happy to finish year after year in mid table so they may well follow the top 6 lead.

And it gives them an excuse not to spend money on transfers, while keeping the Premier League money coming in...

[pauliewalnuts]

I wonder if anyone will ever try turning football into a sport; something uncontrolled and surprising. Probably wouldn't work.

It could work. Would have to see the numbers first.

[chrisw1]

If it happens, more pressure to increase revenue. You wonder that Newcastle's state owners will get pissed off their hands are tied and walk away of they can't be successful (by not being able to knock their local rivals in the Gulf of their perch), to a lesser extent our owners too?

But Newcastle already have 52k seats and are positioned far better than us to drive revenue.

Frankly if these new rules operate how I think they do, it's just as bad as the Superleague proposals in terms of pulling up the ladder.

[VILLA MOLE]

So I take it this would still stop clubs having Stadium sponsorship at £50 million a year to up their  turnover