FFP

[Rotterdam]

The article also goes on to suggest Newcastle should consider moving to a bigger stadium. I think we maybe in the same boat...a bigger stadium with use outside of the 30 or so home games a year.

[Dogtanian]

Everybody pretty much agrees that the rules favour six clubs, but there isn't a great deal that can be done about it at the moment.

The problem lies in the fact it takes 14 clubs to vote through a change. Which sounds good, as theoretically it means those six clubs can't stop the rules being changed. But the reality is that not every club feels the rules are restricting them.

If the 14 clubs voted to bin the current restraints and open spending up, what are they voting for? Straight away they could be adding another two clubs to the six already outspending them.

If you are Brighton, Brentford, or Bournemouth, who aren't really competing with the top six, but would see themselves as competing along with Villa and Newcastle for those 8 European slots, would you want to vote to potentially establish a top 8? You're just making your own task harder.

For everyone else in the Premier League, the rules effectively set a maximum cost of competing. How many owners / investors want that cost to increase without a tangible increase to their rewards? Why double your losses to still stay mid-table or lower half? Why make it easier for new teams coming up to catch up with you and potentially take your place?

This is why the rules that are obviously broken have not been changed in any significant way. I don't see them being adjusted significantly without something fundamentally changing or some external force coming into play.

Should English teams no longer be able to compete in Europe, I think that would see a change happen. But at the end of the day, with only a couple of clubs really suffering from it there's just not enough impetus to make big changes happen.

[Stu82]

Very good points Dogtanion.
All we can do to break though is hang on to Unai, qualify for champs league and hope commercial dept work wonders.

[VILLA MOLE]

There must be some compromise where it doesn't have to be feast or famine on Spending .  A compromise where you cant spend what you like but not ask to compete with a hand behind their back.

[LeeS]

Everybody pretty much agrees that the rules favour six clubs, but there isn't a great deal that can be done about it at the moment.

The problem lies in the fact it takes 14 clubs to vote through a change. Which sounds good, as theoretically it means those six clubs can't stop the rules being changed. But the reality is that not every club feels the rules are restricting them.

If the 14 clubs voted to bin the current restraints and open spending up, what are they voting for? Straight away they could be adding another two clubs to the six already outspending them.

If you are Brighton, Brentford, or Bournemouth, who aren't really competing with the top six, but would see themselves as competing along with Villa and Newcastle for those 8 European slots, would you want to vote to potentially establish a top 8? You're just making your own task harder.

For everyone else in the Premier League, the rules effectively set a maximum cost of competing. How many owners / investors want that cost to increase without a tangible increase to their rewards? Why double your losses to still stay mid-table or lower half? Why make it easier for new teams coming up to catch up with you and potentially take your place?

This is why the rules that are obviously broken have not been changed in any significant way. I don't see them being adjusted significantly without something fundamentally changing or some external force coming into play.

Should English teams no longer be able to compete in Europe, I think that would see a change happen. But at the end of the day, with only a couple of clubs really suffering from it there's just not enough impetus to make big changes happen.

None of that stops the 14 from agreeing to limit what the other 6 spend. There are many ways you could impose a cap. It might even mean the better run clubs down the league could start to dream big.

[Dogtanian]

You think the other 14 should propose rules that specifically name the other 6 and restrict them somehow?

I guess any club can propose a rule change and have it put up for a vote, but I think the six would be able to convince at least one other club to vote against it. It would be pretty easy to do, I think.

Even if the rule got through the vote, I suspect there would be some legal action going on as it's hardly fair and sporting if clubs are competing under two different sets of rules. The current ones favour those six, but at least the same rules apply to all twenty.

[LeeS]

No, not name them explicitly. Just propose a total cap on spending. Not one that is relative to earnings. It would level the playing field immediately and make youth development and good management the key differentiators.

[Percy McCarthy]

Everybody pretty much agrees that the rules favour six clubs, but there isn't a great deal that can be done about it at the moment.

The problem lies in the fact it takes 14 clubs to vote through a change. Which sounds good, as theoretically it means those six clubs can't stop the rules being changed. But the reality is that not every club feels the rules are restricting them.

If the 14 clubs voted to bin the current restraints and open spending up, what are they voting for? Straight away they could be adding another two clubs to the six already outspending them.

If you are Brighton, Brentford, or Bournemouth, who aren't really competing with the top six, but would see themselves as competing along with Villa and Newcastle for those 8 European slots, would you want to vote to potentially establish a top 8? You're just making your own task harder.

For everyone else in the Premier League, the rules effectively set a maximum cost of competing. How many owners / investors want that cost to increase without a tangible increase to their rewards? Why double your losses to still stay mid-table or lower half? Why make it easier for new teams coming up to catch up with you and potentially take your place?

This is why the rules that are obviously broken have not been changed in any significant way. I don't see them being adjusted significantly without something fundamentally changing or some external force coming into play.

Should English teams no longer be able to compete in Europe, I think that would see a change happen. But at the end of the day, with only a couple of clubs really suffering from it there's just not enough impetus to make big changes happen.

None of that stops the 14 from agreeing to limit what the other 6 spend. There are many ways you could impose a cap. It might even mean the better run clubs down the league could start to dream big.

Great. Sorted. Now let’s start on the UEFA rules as they’re stricter.

[VILLA MOLE]

No, not name them explicitly. Just propose a total cap on spending. Not one that is relative to earnings. It would level the playing field immediately and make youth development and good management the key differentiators.

Every team in the league can invest the same amount based in the highest turnover the previous year

 As long as that spend is not based on debt against the club

[Percy McCarthy]

Just had to turn off a pod which I was looking forward to watching because Dan Bardell was trying to think of yet another way to say ‘it ay fair’. We know, FFS!

[chrisw1]

I like Dan.

And with serious journalists also beginning to regularly say the same, I don't mind people continuing to shine a light on the system.

[Crown Hill]

I like Dan.

And with serious journalists also beginning to regularly say the same, I don't mind people continuing to shine a light on the system.

That’s my view. Messaging in comms never works until you’re sick of hearing the repetition. And we need people to keep talking about this until the rules are changed.

The likes of Carragher, Neville never talk about the intrinsic unfairness of the rules.

[Dogtanian]

No, not name them explicitly. Just propose a total cap on spending. Not one that is relative to earnings. It would level the playing field immediately and make youth development and good management the key differentiators.

Every team in the league can invest the same amount based in the highest turnover the previous year

 As long as that spend is not based on debt against the club

Unfortunately, the clubs voted against a system that meant everyone had the same limit. Pretty much for the same reasons.

Link it to the lowest turnover club and the bigger clubs (including us) moan that they're being throttled and can't compete with European rivals. Link it to the highest turnover club and all the clubs lower down will end up having to spend more just to stay still.

Whichever way you try to do it, there are going to be 7 or more clubs that don't want it.

[LeeB]

Factoring in debt would even things up, so no chance of that.

[paul_e]

No, not name them explicitly. Just propose a total cap on spending. Not one that is relative to earnings. It would level the playing field immediately and make youth development and good management the key differentiators.

Every team in the league can invest the same amount based in the highest turnover the previous year

 As long as that spend is not based on debt against the club

Unfortunately, the clubs voted against a system that meant everyone had the same limit. Pretty much for the same reasons.

Link it to the lowest turnover club and the bigger clubs (including us) moan that they're being throttled and can't compete with European rivals. Link it to the highest turnover club and all the clubs lower down will end up having to spend more just to stay still.

Whichever way you try to do it, there are going to be 7 or more clubs that don't want it.

I'd tie it to premier league earning. So something like "total wages for players and staff of the first team can't exceed 150% of the median premier league earning of the previous season. Clubs in Europe may add an additional x% to support the extra games required of them".

Transfer fee could still be huge but anything that goes to the players (signing on fees, bonuses, etc) gets included and have sanctions that rapidly jump from a small fine for a low breech up to fixed point deductions for going wildly over. There would be a tiny loss at the top end where clubs like Real, Barca, Bayern, etc can offer insane wages to a few players that English clubs can't compete with but you'd end up with a significantly more competitive premier league after a couple of years of adjustment. You also lower the incentive to raise prices, potentially improving things for fans as well.