Administrator Stan 18,425 Posted April 29 Administrator Share Posted April 29 Quote Premier League clubs have agreed in principle to introduce a spending cap. A majority of clubs voted in favour of the spending cap, which will be determined by the amount of money earned in television rights by the lowest-earning club in the Premier League. If approved at June's AGM, the new model will replace the Profit and Sustainability Regulations presently used from the 2025-26 season onwards. The league's current financial rules, which have seen Everton and Nottingham Forest penalised six and four points respectively this season, have been criticised for favouring clubs with the highest revenue. The new model is being referred to as "anchoring". https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/cpegd3dy8j7o Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subscriber RandoEFC+ 7,678 Posted April 29 Subscriber Share Posted April 29 Always hesitate to be too optimistic about anything any football authorities do but this seems like a step in the right direction. 4.5x seems a bit high though. Only Man City and Chelsea would apparently have to reduce their spending. Which means that Man Utd's spending, for example, would still be legit and it still stops the rest of the pyramid ever seeing those teams remotely pulled back into the pack in terms of finances. Some cap is better than none though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrator Stan 18,425 Posted April 29 Author Administrator Share Posted April 29 41 minutes ago, RandoEFC said: Always hesitate to be too optimistic about anything any football authorities do but this seems like a step in the right direction. 4.5x seems a bit high though. Only Man City and Chelsea would apparently have to reduce their spending. Which means that Man Utd's spending, for example, would still be legit and it still stops the rest of the pyramid ever seeing those teams remotely pulled back into the pack in terms of finances. Some cap is better than none though. Yeah it's a step in the right direction. If it's any higher, like 5x, then only Chelsea have to cut their spending. Higher than that, at 6x, then everyone continues to spend like they have been. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cicero 5,267 Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 Wouldn't this in turn encourage more owners taking money out of clubs and likely increase the number of foreign ownership? If there are clubs generating 150-200m of 'spare cash' every year, there would be a stampede of billionaires looking to invest billions on clubs that are guaranteeing an 8% return every year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Palace Fan 3,408 Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 Based on Kieran Maguire's projections on what a club can spend in comparison to last season you can see why the Manchester clubs and Chelsea voted against. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrator Stan 18,425 Posted April 29 Author Administrator Share Posted April 29 21 minutes ago, Cicero said: Wouldn't this in turn encourage more owners taking money out of clubs and likely increase the number of foreign ownership? If there are clubs generating 150-200m of 'spare cash' every year, there would be a stampede of billionaires looking to invest billions on clubs that are guaranteeing an 8% return every year. Yeah it's one thing being debated - the top clubs will be able to spend freely like they have been. Can see it leading to more US and Saudi owners... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subscriber RandoEFC+ 7,678 Posted April 29 Subscriber Share Posted April 29 They need to be careful with a few things on this. The "lowest club's income" needs to be done as a rolling average so that if a "small" club enters the league with much lower revenues it doesn't screw up everyone's accounts. A bigger deal though is how to limit the amount of spending that's needed to compete in the Premier League to allow the Championship and the rest of the pyramid to stay in touch. The existence of parachute payments is a sticking plaster and to be honest a bit of a stain on English football. And seeing the same three clubs go down that came up isn't good for the league either. The gulf between the top two divisions is something that needs fixing. Theoretically, it shouldn't be impossible for a club coming up from the Championship to compete at the top of the Premier League straight away if they do a bloody good job, just like Ipswich have done in the Championship this season. A pipe dream to see a hierarchy as fluid as that I know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrangeKhrush 300 Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 3 hours ago, The Palace Fan said: Based on Kieran Maguire's projections on what a club can spend in comparison to last season you can see why the Manchester clubs and Chelsea voted against. I am fine with it, those clubs have had financial dominance for to long to feel sorry for them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrangeKhrush 300 Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 3 hours ago, Stan said: Yeah it's one thing being debated - the top clubs will be able to spend freely like they have been. Can see it leading to more US and Saudi owners... FFP was preventing any owners wanting to buy due to the handcuffing it places on owners while ensuring the status quo remains, this kind of forces big clubs to reduce their overheads to spend more, it will stop talent going to one or two clubs and being spread around. I think the EPL has some potential to turn mid tier clubs into contestants. I can't see Everton having the finances to go all out on that 320 million but they could feasibly spend 200 million and build a team to take them back up the table. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danny 2,215 Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 Honestly not sure what this will solve in terms of English football, but if you’re a Premier League club then you can basically secure enough investment each season to try and compete with the bigger clubs. No wonder they didn’t vote for it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Blue 1,904 Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 I find this funny that the first version of this we was in the top 3 at the good end but now they have worked it so we are at the bad end ..the PFA seem to be against it, see what happens Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrangeKhrush 300 Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 City, Yanited, villa voted against with Chelsea abstaining, 16/20 clubs is enough to get it passed for the 2025/2026 season. They are still determining anchoring rules. Currently 103m is the lowest commercial revenue, the current figure is 4.5x that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reluctant Striker 134 Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 (edited) Yes, difficult to know what to make of this, but everybody knew the current method was not fit for purpose. This does, at first glance, appear to allow more spending, if clubs are in a position to splash around more cash, from an increased benefactor? Within set limits? And difficult to understand exactly why my club voted against. I can only guess they felt confident about growing the clubs finances within the existing arrangements. Yet Arsenal, Spurs, Newcastle, Liverpool, West Ham, etc, all voted for this. Edited April 29 by Reluctant Striker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.