Install the app
How to install the app on iOS

Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.

Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.

 

6 + 2 Point Deductions

pfim said:
If they wanted to PREVENT clubs from financial peril, the penalties would be removed.

The problems with PSR and FFP are this:

1. The calculation is forward looking (you need to budget against many variables)
2. The punishment is backward looking (it can't possibly be applied in the offending year).

How you remove the uncertainty is to create a hard cap. Use the 70% of revenue as an example.

A club's cap would be determined by the prior year's revenue. An adjustment would be made for the promoted clubs.

Clubs would know how much they could spend on wages and fees on July 1st of each year.

The that calculation is submitted to the league and is updated for each transaction.

Any transactions that fall afoul the cap are not registered. No one can go over their cap, so there can be no punishment.

This would require oversight and strict rules on revenues, which there should be anyway.

But as I said before, none of this is about sustainable, responsible ownership. It's about codifying profitability and certainty for the largest clubs.
Click to expand...
A cap as a % leaves us with the same issue.. being far more beneficial to the big 5 and Spurs than the rest of the league. The fairest way would be a cap as a figure, for example and I'm not suggesting this should be the number but 120 million which includes salary and transfers, it would need to be European wide and would drive down transfer prices and the disgusting money these players pocket.
 
pfim said:
What I got from it:

"None of this is my fault."
Click to expand...
Yeah I think the congratulatory tone is totally misjudged there. As @GrandOldTeam kind of said, either the club has got a terrible outcome from the hearings, in which case they shouldn't be congratulating themselves, or the club has been so badly mismanaged for years and has got itself into such a mess that they regard six points as a good outcome which, although some of the personnel may have changed, is hardly grounds for self-congratulation either.

Sometimes best not to say anything.
 
Tipp blue said:
A cap as a % leaves us with the same issue.. being far more beneficial to the big 5 and Spurs than the rest of the league. The fairest way would be a cap as a figure, for example and I'm not suggesting this should be the number but 120 million which includes salary and transfers, it would need to be European wide and would drive down transfer prices and the disgusting money these players pocket.
Click to expand...

No one will agree to that, unless it's a closed league.
 
Tipp blue said:
A cap as a % leaves us with the same issue.. being far more beneficial to the big 5 and Spurs than the rest of the league. The fairest way would be a cap as a figure, for example and I'm not suggesting this should be the number but 120 million which includes salary and transfers, it would need to be European wide and would drive down transfer prices and the disgusting money these players pocket.
Click to expand...
You're describing American Football there. And that's entirely driven by profit over performance.

There's a happy medium where performance (on and off the pitch) has to be rewarded and so I think ability to spend has to relate to revenue, in whatever form that takes. A hard cap doesn't really do that, the NFL salary cap if anything acts to dismantle successful sides as they can't fit the wage demands of the players who make them successful. And I'm not sure that would be what anyone really wants to see either.
 

Would we be in good standing if the revenue cap was to be properly introduced the season after we’d made a load of significant player sales?

For example, if it came in the season after we sold Branthwaite, Onana, and Pickford? Our revenue would be rather high in such circumstances, wouldn’t it?
 
Dymak said:
Would we be in good standing if the revenue cap was to be properly introduced the season after we’d made a load of significant player sales?

For example, if it came in the season after we sold Branthwaite, Onana, and Pickford? Our revenue would be rather high in such circumstances, wouldn’t it?
Click to expand...

No, we have a load of short term debt to pay off.
 
Richard Alex said:
This Thomas Frank is weasel IMO. Saying we should get penalised again. Just because his team is struggling.
Absolute cheerleader and a quilt.
Click to expand...
That's not exactly what he said.

I read it as they're expecting we will get another deduction, I don't see anywhere he says we should. Just that he wants it sorted before the end of the season.

“For me, it’s very simple: if you break the rules, there needs to be sanction — end of discussion”, Frank said on Friday.

“That’s the society we’re living in, that’s the football world we’re living in — boom. How much, how little? There are much more clever guys than me. Luckily they take care of that and they should know what kind of sanction it should be.

“If it’s two points, six points, ten points, 20 points, I don’t care — that’s up to them. I’m here to try to coach a football team and try to win a few more football matches.

“The only thing I would say is Nottingham [Forest] and Everton will, with what you read, get a points deduction in the near future. They will appeal it, and then the result of that appeal we need to know before the end of the season, for everyone involved, especially for Nottingham and Everton.”
Click to expand...
 

Tony’s Carp said:
You're describing American Football there. And that's entirely driven by profit over performance.

There's a happy medium where performance (on and off the pitch) has to be rewarded and so I think ability to spend has to relate to revenue, in whatever form that takes. A hard cap doesn't really do that, the NFL salary cap if anything acts to dismantle successful sides as they can't fit the wage demands of the players who make them successful. And I'm not sure that would be what anyone really wants to see either.
Click to expand...
I prefer the NBA cap system.. you can spend a certain amount its around 140M dollars this year.. but you can spend more than that if you want but you have ro pay a tax for doing so... luxury tax it's called.. so if a team spends 200M they'll be taxed on the 60M over.. I think the tax is about 50% so theyd have to pay an additional 30M to the league, the NBA then split this between the teams that are under the tax threshold.
If the PL were to bring this rule in then they could have it that anything over the limit + the tax, is taken on by the owner of the club and can't be saddled on the club as debt.
The PL could then take the tax and send it down to grassroots. It's the best solution as far as I can see, Manchester City's owners could go out and spend a billion a year but they'd be on hook for 400 million tax and grassroots get a nice lob of cash, owners would soon reel in the spending if huge amounts of tax is required every year, other owners might not go over the limit, others might do it from time to time.
 
Moomin said:
No, we have a load of short term debt to pay off.
Click to expand...

I guess that depends on the terms of the debt. With some debt already tied to future media revenues, and the 777 debt possibly becoming equity.

But with regards to the calculation that will determine a club’s maximum expenditure based on revenue… our calculation, our maximum allowed expenditure, will be significantly higher should it be calculated the season after selling high value players, no?

And our maximum expenditure will be considerably less should the players not be sold?
 

Welcome to GrandOldTeam

Get involved. Registration is simple and free.

Register
Back
Top