New PL FFP rules



Roker Mackem said:
PL meeting this week to discuss proposals where you can spend upto 70% of your turnover in a year. This will replace the £105M loss over three years rule.

Surely this just cements the richest clubs further and Saudi will love it as they could just keep increasing sponsorship.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...
With either approach the oil state clubs will just keep increasing sponsorship. I’m not sure what the answer to the issue is though.
 
Roker Mackem said:
PL meeting this week to discuss proposals where you can spend upto 70% of your turnover in a year. This will replace the £105M loss over three years rule.

Surely this just cements the richest clubs further and Saudi will love it as they could just keep increasing sponsorship.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...
They’ll find a way. In theory it’s a good way of stopping clubs spending what they don’t have but it’s also massively widens the gap of who can spend what
 
Roker Mackem said:
PL meeting this week to discuss proposals where you can spend upto 70% of your turnover in a year. This will replace the £105M loss over three years rule.

Surely this just cements the richest clubs further and Saudi will love it as they could just keep increasing sponsorship.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...
Not for me. That will simply increase the gap between the 'have and have not'. The way forward needs to be the opposite.
Perhaps, if this is allowed to happen, a 'purchase tax' to help the lower leagues?
Spend x amount freely. Above that a 10% surcharge which goes to a common pool to assist those lower down the pyramid.
Newcastle (or whoever) can freely spend 500m is they wish. However that will come with a 50m 'donation' to be utilised for others. That donation will make no difference to the Newcastle's, City's etc but it would, as an example, have saved Bury if dispersed correctly.
Surely that is better outcome than constant rule changes, designed to stop overspending, given that the rules are almost all beset by loopholes that are simply exploited.
 
Last edited:
Biffo The Bear said:
Not for me. That will simply increase the gap between the 'have and have not'. The way forward needs to be the opposite.
Perhaps, if this is allowed to happen, a 'purchase tax' to help the lower leagues?
Spend x amount freely. Above that a 10% surcharge which goes to a common pool to assist those lower down the pyramid.
Newcastle (or whoever) can freely spend 500m is they wish. However that will come with a 50m 'donation' to be utilised for others. That donation will make no difference to the Newcastle's, City's etc but it would, as an example, have saved Bury if dispersed correctly.
Surely that is better outcome than constant rule changes, designed to stop overspending, given that the rules are almost all beset by loopholes that are simply exploited.
Click to expand...
That’s an absolutely terrible idea.
 
Biffo The Bear said:
Not for me. That will simply increase the gap between the 'have and have not'. The way forward needs to be the opposite.
Perhaps, if this is allowed to happen, a 'purchase tax' to help the lower leagues?
Spend x amount freely. Above that a 10% surcharge which goes to a common pool to assist those lower down the pyramid.
Newcastle (or whoever) can freely spend 500m is they wish. However that will come with a 50m 'donation' to be utilised for others. That donation will make no difference to the Newcastle's, City's etc but it would, as an example, have saved Bury if dispersed correctly.
Surely that is better outcome than constant rule changes, designed to stop overspending, given that the rules are almost all beset by loopholes that are simply exploited.
Click to expand...

Sadly the big few and their fans have a me, me, me attitude, as evidenced by many of your club's fans on here (despite the fact some of those clubs played Scunthorpe, Donny Rovers, Bury act not long ago)

We can clearly both remember Chelsea and Newcastle doing nowt in front of poor crowds before the dodgy money arrived.
 
Was always gonna happen. Whatever they implement will 💯 make it easier for the mags to spend their dirty money. Presumably they will still need to prove fair market value for sponsorship deals like
 
Turnover is not profit. A club could turn over hundreds of millions and make no profit, yet would still be allowed to spend.
The rules keep changing because FFP is now hindering the very clubs that wanted it brought it to protect themselves.
 
Biffo The Bear said:
Not for me. That will simply increase the gap between the 'have and have not'. The way forward needs to be the opposite.
Perhaps, if this is allowed to happen, a 'purchase tax' to help the lower leagues?
Spend x amount freely. Above that a 10% surcharge which goes to a common pool to assist those lower down the pyramid.
Newcastle (or whoever) can freely spend 500m is they wish. However that will come with a 50m 'donation' to be utilised for others. That donation will make no difference to the Newcastle's, City's etc but it would, as an example, have saved Bury if dispersed correctly.
Surely that is better outcome than constant rule changes, designed to stop overspending, given that the rules are almost all beset by loopholes that are simply exploited.
Click to expand...

The PL treat the EFL with absolute disdain and would never agree such a deal.
 
The PL clubs throwing a hissy fit because they can’t fritter away hundreds of millions in January to fix all the fuck ups they made in the summer.
 
Honess10 said:
Was always gonna happen. Whatever they implement will 💯 make it easier for the mags to spend their dirty money. Presumably they will still need to prove fair market value for sponsorship deals like
Click to expand...
Worth a listen although it’s lengthy.

www.blackstonechambers.com

Episode 13: The Sport and Competition Law Podcast

In episode 13 of the Sports Law Podcast, Nick De Marco KC is joined by 4 expert guests to explore 4 recent highly significant Competition Law cases in the world of sport.
www.blackstonechambers.com www.blackstonechambers.com
 
The biggest clubs and the smallest owners will be buzzing with this.

Shut the door on any possible threats if you’re a big club and a good excuse to get fans off your back if you’re getting grief for not investing enough as a smaller owner.
 
Footy is ruined. The biggest attraction to the game was the romance of fans of clubs around the country and within the pyramid dreaming of a rise to glory either in fa cup or up the leagues to the top.

Didn’t it feel good the other weekend to see Maidstone beat Ipswich (sorry Ipswich fans)? It had felt like ages since we’d had the romance of giant killing in fa cup.

The reality today is however that the top rich clubs, spent silly and then pulled up the draw bridge to prevent others from getting in on the action. Money has got so big it’s caused corruption and power with a few and ruined it all.

Can’t ever see us competing in top 6 of premier league again, even if we got a mega rich owner in. Turnover just wouldn’t let us compete.

Football has lost its key USP, the romance and dream. Shot itself in the foot. But those at top won’t care as they have “fans” around the world buying tops and merch and paying to watch on TV.
 

Back
Top