FFP

[Louzie0]

This is a strange argument from your friends.
On that basis, Villa could buy someone from wherever in League 4, throw £250k a week at him and watch as he magically metamorphosed into Messi.

I’ve probably misunderstood!

Emery could develop most players into elite versions of themselves (e.g. Morgan Rogers’ latest interview) which input has had more impact than big paydays. They could have been a big attraction to Villa for the players, but Emery would prioritise someone he could work with, I think.

[KevinGage]

The rules do nothing to prevent scenarios like that. See Wednesday, Sheffield.

They are in place to protect the established elite, because Michel Platini didn't want teams being able to challenge/usurp Juventus in the same way that Man City were able to overtake Man U, Liverpool, etc.

Yep. He made particular reference to Man Citeh and clubs with no history (which doesn't totally apply to them in fairness) when this shit was brought in.

[KevinGage]

They do and its a great Stadium ( I've been there for NFL) its also based in London and easy to get to with Public Transport. Matchday revenue without NFL etc is over £100mil but it took 1.2bil to build and Spurs playing at Wembley to get there.

In an alternate reality the West Midlands is the powerhouse of the UK economy and Birmingham City Council are admired far and wide for their financial savvy.

In that reality, I wouldn't be against 3-4 'home' games per season played at a municipal Tottingham-esque American football stadium in the city centre. Against the plastics, mostly.  Save them fouling VP.

But as an actual home venue? Naah.

If we ever had to make the switch to a venue like that for good and effectively cede home advantage, that's me done with football.

[eamonn]

This is a strange argument from your friends.
On that basis, Villa could buy someone from wherever in League 4, throw £250k a week at him and watch as he magically metamorphosed into Messi.

I’ve probably misunderstood!

Emery could develop most players into elite versions of themselves (e.g. Morgan Rogers’ latest interview) which input has had more impact than big paydays. They could have been a big attraction to Villa for the players, but Emery would prioritise someone he could work with, I think.

No, you're right! Should have thought of that. Rogers going from £10k a week or whatever at Boro to now when he's on ten times that presumably, is down to Emery's vision and coaching.

[Dante Lavelli]

Eamonn - your friend is somewhat correct. We have an aggregate salary that’s about 6th in the PL but our income was way lower having corporate deals more associated with the Championship than the PL.

We needed to transition through that phase by qualifying for Europe and increase revenue. The owners - being wealthy - chose to bank roll it rather than growing more organically.

Next phase is the warehouse, shop and a bigger North Stand. More people, spending more per game, will mean we can grow wages again.

 

[Tuscans]

Chelsea and Aston Villa face painful transfer decisions as Uefa’s new rules bite


After thrifty summers, recent breaches mean both Premier League clubs will have to be even more careful going forward

The huge fines levied on Chelsea and Aston Villa by Uefa for breaching spending rules made headlines this summer.

But possibly more punishing are the financial penalties included in the finer print of the settlement agreements both clubs have signed.

To recap where we are: at the start of July, Chelsea were fined £26.8m – rising potentially to £78.9m if accounts do not improve – the largest fine ever handed out by Uefa to a club. Aston Villa, meanwhile, were fined £9.5m, rising to a possible £26.8m.

Each club failed Uefa’s new football earnings rule, where clubs are only permitted to lose a certain amount each season, and the squad cost control ratio regulations, whereby money spent on wages and transfer fees can only be a certain percentage of revenues.

The i Paper can reveal, however, that while the fines were substantial – the impact diluted somewhat by the fact they do not have to be counted in future accounts – there was arguably a far greater punishment included in the more detailed settlements.

Uefa vs the Premier League
One surprising element of the whole affair was that neither club failed the Premier League’s profitability and sustainability rules (PSR) for the same time period. Under the League’s regulations, clubs are permitted to lose up to £105m over three years.

Similar financial rules to Uefa will, eventually, be adopted, with clubs broadly in agreement to transition to the cost control ratio system, while also adding in an “anchoring” rule, where clubs at the top are only permitted to spend a certain multiplier of revenues of clubs at the bottom.

Even executives at clubs at the top of the Premier League are satisfied that this will not hugely reduce their spending power, and will ensure the top-flight remains competitive.

Read Next
PSR has slammed the door in Aston Villa and Newcastle’s face
Plans to introduce this for the 2025-26 season were delayed last season, but it will be discussed again this season before being voted on by all clubs.

As it stands, the two systems differ, and while Chelsea and Aston Villa complied with Premier League regulations, they did not meet Uefa’s requirements.

There were various reasons why, including that Chelsea were able to include the sale of their women’s team to themselves, for £200m, within their Premier League accounts, but Uefa do not permit it.

While Villa’s wage bill was £252m, against revenue of £257.7m, in the club’s accounts – far exceeding the 80 percent allowance.

What are the new restrictions?
Under the extended punishments, Chelsea, who agreed to a four-year settlement plan, are only permitted to lose £4.3m in the 2026-27 accounts, and the following season must break even.

Aston Villa, who agreed to a three-year settlement plan, are only allowed to lose £4.3m this season, and must break even in the 2026-27 season accounts.

Uefa will be monitoring compliance closely. Club accountants and executives must give progress updates every six months to Uefa’s Club Financial Control Body, according to the settlement agreements, read by The i Paper.

They have also agreed to cooperate fully with external auditors employed by Uefa.

Aston Villa had to ensure this season that their transfer balance was positive to register new players for their “A List” to play in the Europa League. And will have to do so again, if they do not meet future targets.


Chelsea have to ensure they have a positive transfer balance for this season and next season. And the restriction will only be loosened if they meet certain criteria.

Football finance expert Kieran Maguire believes these are finally signs that Uefa’s financial rules are growing “teeth”.

“Uefa rules are a paradox,” he tells The i Paper. “Rules are far stricter than the Premier League, with far fewer loopholes, but punishments are lighter as there are no on-pitch consequences at this stage, although could arise for repeat offenders.

“Todd Boehly and Co. see the fines as a cost of doing business so go along with them.

“However, the business plan set by Uefa is interesting and seems to have teeth in terms of forcing player sales at Chelsea.”

How it impacts the transfer window
It will have a significant effect on how the two clubs operate in the transfer market for several windows. Transfer spending will have to be curbed while the clubs are under these restrictions.

It will be a case of selling to fund buys, of generating profits from the academy, of working smartly to unearth young talent at low costs and to sell on for higher. All things the clubs do now, but with more pressure to get it right.

Chelsea’s financial target for this season is unknown – listed only in the settlement agreement as “the projected deficit submitted in the business plan” – but it likely explains why, after several seasons of exorbitant spending, they sold liberally this summer.

They generated more than a quarter of a billion pounds selling players including Noni Madueke to Arsenal for £48.5m, Joao Felix to Al-Nassr for £43.7m and Christopher Nkunku to AC Milan for £36m.


Meanwhile, a clear message has come out of Aston Villa recently criticising the Premier League and its spending limitations, claiming it denies clubs lower down the pyramid the chance to compete with sides at the top.

Yet it appears that Villa’s recent frustrations were caused by breaching Uefa’s rules and having to adhere to Uefa’s sanctions.

The £26m spent on Evann Guessand was the only significant outlay. Harvey Elliot and Jadon Sancho had to sign on loan.

As a result, a frustrating summer left Villa and England defender Ezri Konsa this week claiming the financial rules “killed” his club.

“It is crazy. I don’t understand it myself, but from the outside looking in it doesn’t look too good. I know that. I know it’s really killed us this transfer window,” Konsa said.

“We’re going to have to deal with what we’ve got now.”

[Steve67]

Asking for a friend.  I heard recently that if you are not in a Euro competition, you can spend what you like, which is why two or three clubs have spent shitloads.   The problem starts when you get into a Euro competition?   Is this true?

[Dave]

They still have to meet Premier League rules. But Sunderland are banking on this keeping them up and getting more years on massively increased income to cover it so their losses stay within the permitted limits.

If they get into Europe then they have to start meeting UEFA requirements like we failed to do. And it's much harder to keep spending at top eight Premier League level without the historic revenues to back up your spending