-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
Man United and Emirates Marketing Project split by proposals on Premier League financial controls
- Thread starter Mulletperm
- Start date
jts1882
Dean Richards
Re: Premier League ponders salary cap or financial fair play as new cash looms
I read this analysis of the UEFA FFP regulations by the Swiss Rambler this morning: http://swissramble.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/uefas-ffp-regulations-play-to-win.html
Of the English clubs, only City would be affected and they might well get round it with their sponsorship deals. The big three Italian clubs have problems and presumably the new sugar daddy clubs would as well: PSG, Zenit, Anzi.
Clearly those rules just defend the status quo and protect the high revenue clubs (United, Arsenal). They would make it hard for another Blackburn, Chelsea or City to break the status quo.
As for a salary cap, it depends on how it is done. An NFL style fixed cap would hurt all the top clubs and penalise those playing extra games in Europe. I assume they mean a cap on share of revenues on wages. This would have a major impact on City, and also affect Chelsea and Liverpool. United, Arsenal and Spurs are best placed to take advantage. If I remember correctly, Bolton and Blackburn would have struggled. Villa, West Ham and Portsmouth had higher wages than Spurs a few years ago but have variously solved the problem by selling players, getting relegated and selling players, and going bust.
I read this analysis of the UEFA FFP regulations by the Swiss Rambler this morning: http://swissramble.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/uefas-ffp-regulations-play-to-win.html
Of the English clubs, only City would be affected and they might well get round it with their sponsorship deals. The big three Italian clubs have problems and presumably the new sugar daddy clubs would as well: PSG, Zenit, Anzi.
Clearly those rules just defend the status quo and protect the high revenue clubs (United, Arsenal). They would make it hard for another Blackburn, Chelsea or City to break the status quo.
As for a salary cap, it depends on how it is done. An NFL style fixed cap would hurt all the top clubs and penalise those playing extra games in Europe. I assume they mean a cap on share of revenues on wages. This would have a major impact on City, and also affect Chelsea and Liverpool. United, Arsenal and Spurs are best placed to take advantage. If I remember correctly, Bolton and Blackburn would have struggled. Villa, West Ham and Portsmouth had higher wages than Spurs a few years ago but have variously solved the problem by selling players, getting relegated and selling players, and going bust.
Richie
Naybet
Re: Premier League ponders salary cap or financial fair play as new cash looms
A cap is a terrible idea.
We should have a luxury tax like in basketball (although that is combined with a cap). Premier league teams get to spend, say, £60 million/year on salaries. For every £1 you spend over that, you pay £1 to the Premier League.
All that money is then split evenly by the teams under the luxury tax threshold (in this case £60m).
So Emirates Marketing Project can happily go along with their £200m wage bill, but the actual cost to them would be £340m and all the other teams profit from that extra money
A cap is a terrible idea.
We should have a luxury tax like in basketball (although that is combined with a cap). Premier league teams get to spend, say, £60 million/year on salaries. For every £1 you spend over that, you pay £1 to the Premier League.
All that money is then split evenly by the teams under the luxury tax threshold (in this case £60m).
So Emirates Marketing Project can happily go along with their £200m wage bill, but the actual cost to them would be £340m and all the other teams profit from that extra money
mjc23
Terry Fenwick
Re: Premier League ponders salary cap or financial fair play as new cash looms
Sounds a great idea. I'm a big fan of the North American sport structure.
Sounds a great idea. I'm a big fan of the North American sport structure.
jts1882
Dean Richards
My understanding is that the MLS has a "strict" salary cap, except it allows big exceptions for people like Beckham.
Overall I think football has managed itself fairly well over the years. About half the clubs who kicked off the football league are in the PL (or were last year) and most still exist.
Where it has gone badly wrong it is due to dodgy owners and more of these are around now football is big business. Portsmouth had a few: the son of an international arms dealer wanted for illegal trafficking, two penniless Arab billionaires (one who might not have existed), and a friend of the arms dealer. Birmingham has the hairdresser with triad connections who suddenly got rich. And who knows what is happening with Malaga. Then you have Bates and all his secretly owned companies who do him lucrative favours despite having "absolutely no connection" with him. The guy at Rangers is another. And finally you have leaches like the Glazers and Hicks-Gillett. Proper vetting of owners, something the NFL do well, is what football needs more than anything, making sure they have money to buy the club and won't dump the purchase cost on the club or sell off the stadium and other assets.
I'm less worried by Sheikhs and oligarchs if they actually put money into football, even if it does upset the competitive playing field. Mansoor and Abramovich have invested nearly £2 billion in football, money paid to footballers, managers, coaches, and other club employees (plus agents). UEFA wants to stop this, while allowing the Glazers to take £500 million out of football, giving it to bankers instead of footballers, managers, etc. It seems backwards.
Overall I think football has managed itself fairly well over the years. About half the clubs who kicked off the football league are in the PL (or were last year) and most still exist.
Where it has gone badly wrong it is due to dodgy owners and more of these are around now football is big business. Portsmouth had a few: the son of an international arms dealer wanted for illegal trafficking, two penniless Arab billionaires (one who might not have existed), and a friend of the arms dealer. Birmingham has the hairdresser with triad connections who suddenly got rich. And who knows what is happening with Malaga. Then you have Bates and all his secretly owned companies who do him lucrative favours despite having "absolutely no connection" with him. The guy at Rangers is another. And finally you have leaches like the Glazers and Hicks-Gillett. Proper vetting of owners, something the NFL do well, is what football needs more than anything, making sure they have money to buy the club and won't dump the purchase cost on the club or sell off the stadium and other assets.
I'm less worried by Sheikhs and oligarchs if they actually put money into football, even if it does upset the competitive playing field. Mansoor and Abramovich have invested nearly £2 billion in football, money paid to footballers, managers, coaches, and other club employees (plus agents). UEFA wants to stop this, while allowing the Glazers to take £500 million out of football, giving it to bankers instead of footballers, managers, etc. It seems backwards.
Rorschach
Sonny Walters
The sugar daddy phenomenon is wrong too as it makes a mockery of competition. Organic growth of clubs and thus support guarantees nothing any more. The top of the organic tree (
) in the PL is 3rd but probably 4th. They have effectively bought the competitions before they have even started, and it just becomes a tinkling competition between rich pricks. I respect nothing that these clubs do.
metalgear
Luka Modric
another idea i can think of is simply not to award the official title and winnings to clubs that are not making losses.
so the rich oligarchs can still have their little playground, but no medals no champions league, giving up their places to the properly managed clubs.
best of or average of last 3 years P&L could be used to smooth out irregular income/costs. any exceptions put to the vote - also by non-loss making clubs!
so the rich oligarchs can still have their little playground, but no medals no champions league, giving up their places to the properly managed clubs.
best of or average of last 3 years P&L could be used to smooth out irregular income/costs. any exceptions put to the vote - also by non-loss making clubs!
DubaiSpur
Ian Walker
From Blue Moon, on the topic of a European Super League;
'Well, the sooner the MANUres, Bayerns, Reals and Barcas of this world fudge off and have their SuperDuperUniversePremierLeague and leave the rest of us to get on with football as it should be, the better.'
I suspect they haven't realized that the majority of fans would include them in the list of teams that they'd want to fudge off to their SuperDuperUniversePremierLeague. No point letting United, Chelsea, and Arsenal go if you still have City with their 300 million dollar losses and their squad of superstars hoovering up everything. Let them go as well. Ties in well with Rorschach's point.
I guess what I'm trying to elucidate is that the things most of us want, i.e that organic, sustainable growth should be rewarded, and so should loyal, passionate support, these things aren't feasible in the modern Premier League. And haven't been for many years. Yet the solution that fans of City and Chelsea seem to espouse is that we should simply ignore that hope entirely and focus on getting a sugar-daddy in if we ever want any sort of success. That's not fixing that particular problem, that's ignoring it entirely and proposing a solution that only exacerbates it. A solution would be coming up with something like the luxury tax, where teams are penalized for spending more than the rest, and the subsequent rewards are given to those who have not spent that much. For every year a City or Chelsea make losses, they should pay a solidarity payment to the PL and the Football League. It does not stop sugar-daddyism completely, but a least it might allow for other teams to benefit from their willingness to break past what most of us see as fair competition.
One day, I would like to see a Derby or a Forest win the league again. Iève never seen it with my own eyes; in my time watching football, the English league winners have been United, Chelsea, Arsenal and City. I am getting sick of it.
'Well, the sooner the MANUres, Bayerns, Reals and Barcas of this world fudge off and have their SuperDuperUniversePremierLeague and leave the rest of us to get on with football as it should be, the better.'
I suspect they haven't realized that the majority of fans would include them in the list of teams that they'd want to fudge off to their SuperDuperUniversePremierLeague. No point letting United, Chelsea, and Arsenal go if you still have City with their 300 million dollar losses and their squad of superstars hoovering up everything. Let them go as well. Ties in well with Rorschach's point.
I guess what I'm trying to elucidate is that the things most of us want, i.e that organic, sustainable growth should be rewarded, and so should loyal, passionate support, these things aren't feasible in the modern Premier League. And haven't been for many years. Yet the solution that fans of City and Chelsea seem to espouse is that we should simply ignore that hope entirely and focus on getting a sugar-daddy in if we ever want any sort of success. That's not fixing that particular problem, that's ignoring it entirely and proposing a solution that only exacerbates it. A solution would be coming up with something like the luxury tax, where teams are penalized for spending more than the rest, and the subsequent rewards are given to those who have not spent that much. For every year a City or Chelsea make losses, they should pay a solidarity payment to the PL and the Football League. It does not stop sugar-daddyism completely, but a least it might allow for other teams to benefit from their willingness to break past what most of us see as fair competition.
One day, I would like to see a Derby or a Forest win the league again. Iève never seen it with my own eyes; in my time watching football, the English league winners have been United, Chelsea, Arsenal and City. I am getting sick of it.
jts1882
Dean Richards
When the likes of Derby and Forest were winning the league, and generally you could see half a dozen clubs win the league in a decade, the financial playing field was more level. Most money came from the gate and the home and away sides split the gate after expenses, the way they still do in the FA Cup. Clubs with big support still benefited from that support as they got big gates for all home games, but smaller visiting clubs got more.
It was in the early 80s (1983?) that they stopped gate sharing in the league as a sop to the "big five". TV money was fairly minimal back then but as it grew during the 80s they increased the share going to the big clubs. The Sky era and big TV contracts changed the reliance on gates, creating a gulf between the league tiers. However, one thing the PL does right is the way it shares the TV among its members, mostly shared equally with smaller merit and TV popularity components. This contrasts with Spain and Scotland where the TV rights are negotiated by individual clubs or skewed towards an existing elite, respectively.
The rise of the commercial component as a major revenue stream is the most recent and and this isn't shared at all. I think we can include cash injections by sugar-daddy owners as internal sponsorship and include it in this category. A progressive tax on this income and sharing among member clubs would be a positive step. Alternatively sponsorship could be divided on a per match basis and the opposition club gets a share for participating in the game. With shared gates, central TV contracts and redistribution of some of the sponsorship money would see a much fairer financial playing field.
The big problem that football has that the American sports doesn't have is the open nature and international club tournaments. Any measures taken in one country will disadvantage their clubs in European competition unless all countries operate by the same rules.
It was in the early 80s (1983?) that they stopped gate sharing in the league as a sop to the "big five". TV money was fairly minimal back then but as it grew during the 80s they increased the share going to the big clubs. The Sky era and big TV contracts changed the reliance on gates, creating a gulf between the league tiers. However, one thing the PL does right is the way it shares the TV among its members, mostly shared equally with smaller merit and TV popularity components. This contrasts with Spain and Scotland where the TV rights are negotiated by individual clubs or skewed towards an existing elite, respectively.
The rise of the commercial component as a major revenue stream is the most recent and and this isn't shared at all. I think we can include cash injections by sugar-daddy owners as internal sponsorship and include it in this category. A progressive tax on this income and sharing among member clubs would be a positive step. Alternatively sponsorship could be divided on a per match basis and the opposition club gets a share for participating in the game. With shared gates, central TV contracts and redistribution of some of the sponsorship money would see a much fairer financial playing field.
The big problem that football has that the American sports doesn't have is the open nature and international club tournaments. Any measures taken in one country will disadvantage their clubs in European competition unless all countries operate by the same rules.
Agree with that - it's have to be UEFA-wide at least.
Hully
Tony Parks
Re: Premier League ponders salary cap or financial fair play as new cash looms
Depends if a cap was just here or across Europe, if it was just here then we'd have an exidois of talent to clubs able to pay more. All the power is currently with the players.
Depends if a cap was just here or across Europe, if it was just here then we'd have an exidois of talent to clubs able to pay more. All the power is currently with the players.