Financial (Un)Fair Play.

[RomanReigns]

But a flat salary cap or a transfer cap will only penalise teams that are more successful, it would be unfair not to let a successful club not invest the money generated by club activities invest in the club. Why should a well-managed club be penalised and given the same constraints as a badly managed club? That is totally unfair.

man utd are a badly managed club but due to their revenue streams they can spend hundreds of millions every summer

brentford are a well managed club but due to their revenue streams they can only spend a limited amount of money every summer

how is that fair?

Brentford would never be able to compete with Man Utd's revenue streams so how is that fair?

Surely it would be fair if every club had the same wage cap and spending cap

isn't that how the NBA, NFL, MLB and NHL operate along with draft picks?

For me its boring seeing Man City, Liverpool, Chelsea or Man Utd win the league every season and dominate every cup competition

 

[matty1878]

Its simple really. The so called top 6 will continue to be the so called top 6 while the rest are restricted as much as possible from ever encroaching on their parade. That is how pyramids have always worked. A small few have the majority and the majority fight over the scraps.

so everyone below should just not have a f n penny to spend lol

 

[matty1878]

man utd are a badly managed club but due to their revenue streams they can spend hundreds of millions every summer

brentford are a well managed club but due to their revenue streams they can only spend a limited amount of money every summer

how is that fair?

Brentford would never be able to compete with Man Utd's revenue streams so how is that fair?

Surely it would be fair if every club had the same wage cap and spending cap

isn't that how the NBA, NFL, MLB and NHL operate along with draft picks?

For me its boring seeing Man City, Liverpool, Chelsea or Man Utd win the league every season and dominate every cup competition

never mind brentford with man u we can’t even compete with brentford

 

[roydo]

Brentford would never be able to compete with Man Utd's revenue streams so how is that fair?

Would you suggest a cap in line with Uniteds revenue stream, or Brentfords?

 

[RomanReigns]

Would you suggest a cap in line with Uniteds revenue stream, or Brentfords?

i would leave it in the hands of the premier league to decide on what would be a fair cap for the wages and spending

 

[Villa_Fan]

man utd are a badly managed club but due to their revenue streams they can spend hundreds of millions every summer

brentford are a well managed club but due to their revenue streams they can only spend a limited amount of money every summer

how is that fair?

Brentford would never be able to compete with Man Utd's revenue streams so how is that fair?

Surely it would be fair if every club had the same wage cap and spending cap

isn't that how the NBA, NFL, MLB and NHL operate along with draft picks?

For me its boring seeing Man City, Liverpool, Chelsea or Man Utd win the league every season and dominate every cup competition

I do see the unfairness in that and I believe that a club should be allowed to spend beyond their means as long as the owners actually provide the extra funds. Brentford are permitted to spend money that they can afford. If they want to spend another 300m then that is fine IMO, but the owners must provide the 300m. They should not be allowed to spend 300m if they can't afford to spend it and if the owner isn't prepared to make the 300m available to the club, at least in an escrow account.

 

[roydo]

i would leave it in the hands of the premier league to decide on what would be a fair cap for the wages and spending

Bit of a cop out that mate. Cos you either link a cap to a % of income, (advantage United), or a random £££ one. So, should a cap be affordable to Brentford, or not? If it has to be, is that fair to United? How long would they be allowed to replace their squad with one similar to the value of Brentfords?

 

[Micky_T]

Its simple really. The so called top 6 will continue to be the so called top 6 while the rest are restricted as much as possible from ever encroaching on their parade. That is how pyramids have always worked. A small few have the majority and the majority fight over the scraps.

Everton have a higher net spend over the last 10 years than Chelsea do so if we'd have spent that money better we could have had a team competing on the same level as Chelsea. Getting in to the so called top 6 isn't just about being able to spend the most money, it's about spending your money correctly. Everton have just had a relegation battle and huge financial losses because they spend lots of money very, very poorly.

 

[Neiler]

Yeah, the problem with that is that the projected accounts submitted only project losses for the accounting year in question. I believe the allowable loss is 35m a year or 105m over the 3-year rolling FFP period. FFP is does not look at future years. For example, lets say Everton signed Messi and Ronaldo in the Jan window and gave them both 3 and a half year contracts on 25m a year. So the cost to Everton will be 25m for both players from Jan to June for the accounting year and Everton will probably be able to show they can afford the 25m. But FFP doesn't check to see if Everton can afford the commitment to 50m a year for the next 3 years. This is the big danger IMO as owners can sign contracts that last into the future and may be banking on Champs League football in order to pay the debt. If Champs League football doesn't happen then the club is screwed if the owner decides not to fund the club or doesn't have the money to do so. This is what happened Villa with our previous owner. He gambled on promotion to the PL and it failed. He didn't have the money to pay our debts and Villa came within about 48 hours of liquidation. No owner should be allowed to put any club in that position imo

Away from the 35 mill Profit and sustainability threshold, if a club makes any loss of 15 mill or over over three seasons then the owner has to show and commit they have the finance to cover it, I suppose what that does give protection against immediate administration and probably designed to protect the league brand more than anything. But you are right and that is the problem with the rule, if you commit to high costs in wages and amortisation like both our clubs, the commitment is only for the year in question and not projected over the length of contracts, which is a flaw, i was just pointing out there is some mechanism there really, even if flawed.

 

[RomanReigns]

Bit of a cop out that mate. Cos you either link a cap to a % of income, (advantage United), or a random £££ one. So, should a cap be affordable to Brentford, or not? If it has to be, is that fair to United? How long would they be allowed to replace their squad with one similar to the value of Brentfords?

for me any cap should be determined by the leagues revenues not the clubs revenues

and any cap introduction should be set from 5 years from now to make sure that clubs who are above the cap will be able to fall in line with the cap limits by the time the rules are introduced

 

[Mashtray]

Everton have a higher net spend over the last 10 years than Chelsea do so if we'd have spent that money better we could have had a team competing on the same level as Chelsea. Getting in to the so called top 6 isn't just about being able to spend the most money, it's about spending your money correctly. Everton have just had a relegation battle and huge financial losses because they spend lots of money very, very poorly.

I definitely won't argue that money has been poorly spent.

But the whole progression system is flawed. We had to pay 40m for Siggurdson and Man City spent 50m on Haaland. Just because we can match that we are nowhere near that deal. The system is designed for us to overspend on fees and wages to progress

 

[Villa_Fan]

I definitely won't argue that money has been poorly spent.

But the whole progression system is flawed. We had to pay 40m for Siggurdson and Man City spent 50m on Haaland. Just because we can match that we are nowhere near that deal. The system is designed for us to overspend on fees and wages to progress

Siggurdson and Haaland are not comparable. Everton elected to pay 40m for GS, they didn't have to, there were other players available at the time. Haaland had a release clause of 51m and everyone knows that he is worth far more than that. Its the same as if a player signs for free as they run down their contract. Yes the more attractive clubs can attract the players on frees or with small release clauses but that is just the nature of football. Its why Everton can sign better players than Norwich, it is because Everton is a more attractive proposition. It is up to the management of the club to make them as attractive as possible.

 

[Micky_T]

But the whole progression system is flawed. We had to pay 40m for Siggurdson and Man City spent 50m on Haaland.

[sarcasm] You're absolutely right. Everton paid £60,000 for Coleman yet PSG managed to get Messi for free. The whole system is a joke. [/sarcasm]

 

[roydo]

for me any cap should be determined by the leagues revenues not the clubs revenues

and any cap introduction should be set from 5 years from now to make sure that clubs who are above the cap will be able to fall in line with the cap limits by the time the rules are introduced

Ok. So, using random, but not far off figures, PL revenue is circa £120m per club. Or, thats what they get. Uniteds income is circa £500m. So what happens to that, if its not used to improve a team?

 

[RomanReigns]

Ok. So, using random, but not far off figures, PL revenue is circa £120m per club. Or, thats what they get. Uniteds income is circa £500m. So what happens to that, if its not used to improve a team?

follow the American model where all teams pool in their annual revenues in order to redistribute it equally, which means that all teams receive revenue that equals the current salary cap.