FFP

[villadelph]

Right thanks, is this being reported anywhere?

I assume this is what’s being talked about..? Makes sense to me.

https://www.express.co.uk/sport/football/1904649/Premier-League-news-rule-change-Crystal-Palace-Aston-Villa

UEFA’s coefficient payments currently uses a club’s last ten years of performances in European competitions when determining how finances are split. Thus, Manchester City are said to have received a significant £28million compared to Newcastle’s £3.8m this season.

However, according to The Times, Crystal Palace have proposed that changed are made to the coefficient payments which could improve how English sides fare in top European competitions.

The changes would see the Premier League’s Profit and Sustainability Rules (PSR) to allow teams to claim the difference in coefficient funding between themselves and the top club in Europe as ‘allowable losses’.

[PaulWinch again]

Thanks.

[Percy McCarthy]

Further, we have proposed a £30m increase in allowable losses for the last year of PSR. This will be voted on at the PL AGM in early June. Not sure if this is the same, or whether one proposal (either ours or Palace’s) will negate the need or want for the other.

[dalians umbrella]

From the horse's mouth:

https://archive.ph/OWEUc

"The move by Palace is regarded as an alternative plan that would help Villa but not change the general PSR limit."

[Percy McCarthy]

From the horse's mouth:

https://archive.ph/OWEUc

"The move by Palace is regarded as an alternative plan that would help Villa but not change the general PSR limit."

Nice one.

[Demitri_C]

Im all for it personally

[ozzjim]

The general limit should be moved for all clubs though. It's been stuck without any regard for fees or wages inflation.

[Somniloquism]

And didnt they out their own lawyer on the panel, or something?

UEFA put a representative, Citeh also put a representative, then the third one in independent. However IIRC the third person was someone who happened to work at the same law firm Citeh had paid to represent them on the case.

[jon collett]

Right thanks, is this being reported anywhere?

It’s being reported as something Crystal Palace are proposing but the only place I’ve seen it suggested as being likely to pass is on here.

It would need the support of 12 clubs wouldn’t it?

[dalians umbrella]

Right thanks, is this being reported anywhere?

It’s being reported as something Crystal Palace are proposing but the only place I’ve seen it suggested as being likely to pass is on here.

It would need the support of 12 clubs wouldn’t it?

Yes, I don’t see why any other clubs would want to help us out in this way and strengthen our chances of getting top 4 again next season. But then again, I don’t see what’s in it for Palace, so maybe I’m missing something.

[Brazilian Villain]

Yes, I don’t see why any other clubs would want to help us out in this way and strengthen our chances of getting top 4 again next season. But then again, I don’t see what’s in it for Palace, so maybe I’m missing something.

Given their end of season form, maybe they think they could be next season's surprise Champs League qualifiers.

And of course, Villa have been very helpful to Palace in the past.

[Dante Lavelli]

From the horse's mouth:

https://archive.ph/OWEUc

"The move by Palace is regarded as an alternative plan that would help Villa but not change the general PSR limit."

That makes a big difference to Villa (and other ambitious clubs).  It seems very logical, or am I looking through C&B glasses?  Would I feel the same if spurs got the benefit of the extra allowable losses?

The fact it impact so few clubs, yet strengthens the PL, means there’s a good chance it will get voted in right?

[garyellis]

Yes, I don’t see why any other clubs would want to help us out in this way and strengthen our chances of getting top 4 again next season. But then again, I don’t see what’s in it for Palace, so maybe I’m missing something.

Given their end of season form, maybe they think they could be next season's surprise Champs League qualifiers.

And of course, Villa have been very helpful to Palace in the past.

Maybe clubs should vote on the principle rather than preventing another progressing.

[Brazilian Villain]

Yes, I don’t see why any other clubs would want to help us out in this way and strengthen our chances of getting top 4 again next season. But then again, I don’t see what’s in it for Palace, so maybe I’m missing something.

Given their end of season form, maybe they think they could be next season's surprise Champs League qualifiers.

And of course, Villa have been very helpful to Palace in the past.

Maybe clubs should vote on the principle rather than preventing another progressing.

Too true, Parish is right that Uefa’s coefficient payments seem unfair.

[LeeB]

From the horse's mouth:

https://archive.ph/OWEUc

"The move by Palace is regarded as an alternative plan that would help Villa but not change the general PSR limit."

That's my kinda rule change.