FFP

[tomd2103]

Are we......the baddies now?

Don't think so.  I will readily admit that I don't fully understand all of this, but I think we are simply looking after our interests given that we will be the ones disadvantaged the most out of the teams currently around us.

[tomd2103]

Apparently three clubs voted against this spending cap move today - Man United, Man City and us.

Why would we be against that, I wonder?

https://x.com/K__AVFC/status/1784958583366389906?s=09

This thread explains why we may have voted against it.

In summary, PL teams can spend loads to get into Europe, but the ones in Europe already can't because of the UEFA FFP rules. So in theory, we're in Europe so can't spend next season. Newcastle, if they don't get in, can spend a shitload if cash without penalty for the season until they get in.

Makes it harder for us to stay  in Europe basically.

Ah, thanks.

Jesus, though, what a fucking shitshow this whole subject is.

Well exactly.  So let's say Newcastle didn't finish in a European spot, so they went out and spent up to the 85% Premier League limit.  They then had a good season and finished in a European spot, only to then be subject to the 70% UEFA rule the following season. 

[Percy McCarthy]

Apparently three clubs voted against this spending cap move today - Man United, Man City and us.

Why would we be against that, I wonder?

https://x.com/K__AVFC/status/1784958583366389906?s=09

This thread explains why we may have voted against it.

In summary, PL teams can spend loads to get into Europe, but the ones in Europe already can't because of the UEFA FFP rules. So in theory, we're in Europe so can't spend next season. Newcastle, if they don't get in, can spend a shitload if cash without penalty for the season until they get in.

Makes it harder for us to stay  in Europe basically.

Ah, thanks.

Jesus, though, what a fucking shitshow this whole subject is.

Well exactly.  So let's say Newcastle didn't finish in a European spot, so they went out and spent up to the 85% Premier League limit.  They then had a good season and finished in a European spot, only to then be subject to the 70% UEFA rule the following season.

The increase in revenue would probably cover it.

[ozzjim]

I'm really struggling with this one, because the 15% gap in the 2 figures for any club outside United, maybe Chelsea and Man City isn't going to get anywhere close to £550m ish limit that this new cap is going to enforce. So yesterday we voted against something that realistically we are not going to be able to breach anyway even if we did spend 85%.

The 85% vs 70% rule seems to be setting sides up to fail too. The UEFA PSR value at 70% seems to be a bar to try and slow EPL spending and being them back to earth, which ironically isn't needed when many of the richest clubs in the prem have spent like utter idiots for 3-4 years now so it really doesn't matter. The Premier league then allowing 15% higher spending will surely then only see EPL clubs banned from Europe before long as they break the rules, or unable to spend a penny the summer they qualify, indeed having to sell. All very very odd, I would imagine Villa voted no because none of it makes much sense. The ideal seems to be feast to famine, top 4 one year, 8th the next.

[Percy McCarthy]

I'm really struggling with this one, because the 15% gap in the 2 figures for any club outside United, maybe Chelsea and Man City isn't going to get anywhere close to £550m ish limit that this new cap is going to enforce. So yesterday we voted against something that realistically we are not going to be able to breach anyway even if we did spend 85%.

The 85% vs 70% rule seems to be setting sides up to fail too. The UEFA PSR value at 70% seems to be a bar to try and slow EPL spending and being them back to earth, which ironically isn't needed when many of the richest clubs in the prem have spent like utter idiots for 3-4 years now so it really doesn't matter. The Premier league then allowing 15% higher spending will surely then only see EPL clubs banned from Europe before long as they break the rules, or unable to spend a penny the summer they qualify, indeed having to sell. All very very odd, I would imagine Villa voted no because none of it makes much sense. The ideal seems to be feast to famine, top 4 one year, 8th the next.

I think they (the owners) fancy their chances of growing revenues to those levels. We already have to comply with the 70% rule to play in Europe anyway, so I doubt it’s that bit that bothers them.

[Demitri_C]

Apparently three clubs voted against this spending cap move today - Man United, Man City and us.

Why would we be against that, I wonder?

https://x.com/K__AVFC/status/1784958583366389906?s=09

This thread explains why we may have voted against it.

In summary, PL teams can spend loads to get into Europe, but the ones in Europe already can't because of the UEFA FFP rules. So in theory, we're in Europe so can't spend next season. Newcastle, if they don't get in, can spend a shitload if cash without penalty for the season until they get in.

Makes it harder for us to stay  in Europe basically.

Ah, thanks.

Jesus, though, what a fucking shitshow this whole subject is.

Well exactly.  So let's say Newcastle didn't finish in a European spot, so they went out and spent up to the 85% Premier League limit.  They then had a good season and finished in a European spot, only to then be subject to the 70% UEFA rule the following season.

But then they would have to cut their revenue significantly the following season while in europe. I think its a good idea because thw clubs in europe (CL clubs especially) make most of the money and the clubs like palace everton and brentford don't ever get close to europe. Meanwhile thw clubs like amnure citeh get all that revenue and the gap grows.

Think this also stuffs teams like chelsea.

This way people spend more sensibley and its more competitive.  Also gives newly promoted clubs a chance. I mean look at the three that came up all looking like they are gonna go down again.

The only thing thats missing is what's the punishments going to be? If its just big fines then teams will just pay the fine and ignore the rules

[LeeS]

The reality is, we've no idea how much Champions League would actually be worth to us - but I'll bet the club has a pretty good idea.

We can work out the prize money we'll earn easily enough from results (could be anything from £20m to £50m I guess), but all the extra commercial revenue? Who knows.  There'll be full houses at VP (with the new exec seating options probably). I would imagine most of our sponsors have some sort of clause that means they pay more if we're in the Champions League. There could be some entirely new sponsors for the Champions League games. There is the extra sales of shirts and other stuff that simply comes from being successful on the pitch and in the world's biggest club competition. The new Adidas deal might have some extra performance-related bonuses.  Not to mention all the new fans (and their £) that we'll attract from the local area who'll have their head turned by us playing in the Champions League, but who might not have been bothered when we were in the Championship.

It all adds up.

I agree with this Smithy. There are all sorts of fringe benefits for being in the ECL. Imagine the interest we'd have with a home game against Real Madrid... I would caveat this by saying our game on Thursday is our 7th European home fixture this season. All had good attendances. We may only get 4 next year if we go out at the group stage. The prize money may not cover the gap in that circumstance (because we wouldnt have won many games).

[rob_bridge]

ECL is great for profile and cash but as has been seen over years teams who qualify aren't always very prepared.

Newcastle and ManU went out in group stages this year. The latter in a pretty ordinary group. Potential is for the impact on league form.

However like qualificaiton for conference league last season into this, on balance and mainly because we have Emery it is definitely good for us.

However be prepared that we may go out early and it may impact league form.

[Drummond]

I don't get this effect on league form thing. We've done ok this season haven't we?

The matches may be more taxing in the Champions League but our manager recently won the Europa and then got to the Semis of the Champions League the following season.

We're in good hands.

[PeterWithe]

I only noticed that Naseef Sawiris nationality is Belgian. Did i miss this before, i always understood he was Egyptian?

Roman Abramovich has joint Israeli and Portugese nationality, I guess having an EU passport is advantageous to him. The rich don't have to adhere to the same rules.

[Smithy]

I don't get this effect on league form thing. We've done ok this season haven't we?

The matches may be more taxing in the Champions League but our manager recently won the Europa and then got to the Semis of the Champions League the following season.

We're in good hands.

Indeed. I think you just need to look at the league table to see that Newcastle and Man Utd haven't been particularly good this season, and that's the reason they went out in the group stages.  If Europe was having a negative effect on them, they both would have been in better form since going out.  They haven't.  They're just not that good.

I love that we have a no-excuses culture at the club, and Unai has shown this season that he is capable of getting us to compete domestically and in Europe.  Whether he can do it with two domestic cup runs as well, who knows, but so far I've seen nothing to suggest he'll struggle with the demands on all fronts next season.

[AV82EC]

I don't get this effect on league form thing. We've done ok this season haven't we?

The matches may be more taxing in the Champions League but our manager recently won the Europa and then got to the Semis of the Champions League the following season.

We're in good hands.

I think you hit on a good point re: Champs League being more taxing but if muscle memory is a thing then getting into the habit of playing midweek/weekend more frequently then our experiences from this year will stand us in good stead. Newcastle went into the CL this year utterly cold and suffered for it imv whereas our Conf League games were less intense and we’ve been able to adapt.

On your first point I think we’ve only lost once following a European fixture so it’s nonsense to suggest it’s effected us and there’s no reason to extrapolate that’ll change next year.

[ChicagoLion]

Apparently three clubs voted against this spending cap move today - Man United, Man City and us.

Why would we be against that, I wonder?

https://x.com/K__AVFC/status/1784958583366389906?s=09

This thread explains why we may have voted against it.

In summary, PL teams can spend loads to get into Europe, but the ones in Europe already can't because of the UEFA FFP rules. So in theory, we're in Europe so can't spend next season. Newcastle, if they don't get in, can spend a shitload if cash without penalty for the season until they get in.

Makes it harder for us to stay  in Europe basically.

Ah, thanks.

Jesus, though, what a fucking shitshow this whole subject is.

Well exactly.  So let's say Newcastle didn't finish in a European spot, so they went out and spent up to the 85% Premier League limit.  They then had a good season and finished in a European spot, only to then be subject to the 70% UEFA rule the following season.

The increase in revenue would probably cover it.

Exactly, it means that those clubs with European ambitions are going to have to get very smart at Financial Planning.

[ChicagoLion]

Apparently three clubs voted against this spending cap move today - Man United, Man City and us.

Why would we be against that, I wonder?

https://x.com/K__AVFC/status/1784958583366389906?s=09

This thread explains why we may have voted against it.

In summary, PL teams can spend loads to get into Europe, but the ones in Europe already can't because of the UEFA FFP rules. So in theory, we're in Europe so can't spend next season. Newcastle, if they don't get in, can spend a shitload if cash without penalty for the season until they get in.

Makes it harder for us to stay  in Europe basically.

Ah, thanks.

Jesus, though, what a fucking shitshow this whole subject is.

Well exactly.  So let's say Newcastle didn't finish in a European spot, so they went out and spent up to the 85% Premier League limit.  They then had a good season and finished in a European spot, only to then be subject to the 70% UEFA rule the following season.

But then they would have to cut their revenue significantly the following season while in europe. I think its a good idea because thw clubs in europe (CL clubs especially) make most of the money and the clubs like palace everton and brentford don't ever get close to europe. Meanwhile thw clubs like amnure citeh get all that revenue and the gap grows.

Think this also stuffs teams like chelsea.

This way people spend more sensibley and its more competitive.  Also gives newly promoted clubs a chance. I mean look at the three that came up all looking like they are gonna go down again.

The only thing thats missing is what's the punishments going to be? If its just big fines then teams will just pay the fine and ignore the rules

Being banned from European competition until you are in compliance.

[pauliewalnuts]

re the European thing, given Newcastle are in pretty much the same position we are in terms of spending (what we want to do, what we can't do because of the entrenched big 6 and the existing rules etc etc), and given they're also in with a chance of European football next year, you'd think their interests would align pretty closely with ours, but they voted in favour. Strange.