HoylandOwl Posted March 12 Share Posted March 12 https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11095/13092774/premier-leagues-profit-and-sustainability-rules-to-be-replaced-as-early-as-this-summer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tylluan Posted March 12 Share Posted March 12 EFL has to follow suit in the Championship as they already have similar in L1 and 2 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tewksbury Posted March 13 Share Posted March 13 The SCMP should pretty much be the framework for anything. It's actually a pretty good set of rules and with a couple of minor tweaks could work much better than the current rules. The biggest problem with changing FFP in the Championship is EPL protectionism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KrolMong Posted March 13 Share Posted March 13 They are aligning with the 70% of revenue rule, I don’t actually have an issue with this but, it straight away benefits the biggest clubs anyway. Man City made 700 million last year. In theory that allows them to commit just under 500 million to the war chest. For Wednesday, who do about 22 million in revenue, that means 16 million in wages and transfers. It does put a lot of onus on clubs getting it right commercially and also getting academies running, and it I remember, owners are allowed to commit money as well, but it can’t be counter as debt, and it is a fixed number. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andyben Posted March 13 Share Posted March 13 (edited) 11 minutes ago, KrolMong said: They are aligning with the 70% of revenue rule Yes, but it's starting at 85% not 70% and I think they're waiting t see what new regulator is appointed. This is why they didn't sign off the increased efl cash Edited March 13 by Andyben Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andyben Posted March 13 Share Posted March 13 12 minutes ago, KrolMong said: I remember, owners are allowed to commit money as well, but it can’t be counter as debt, and it is a fixed number. I still believe that any EFL chairman / owner should be allowed to put in as much as he wishes (possibly capped at parachute payments in championship) provided its as equity or zero rated unsecured loans. Will avoid any vultures but level the playing field in EFL relative to PL failures. I will push for this as EFL owners conferences and meetings when I'm in charge Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andyben Posted March 13 Share Posted March 13 3 minutes ago, Andyben said: I still believe that any EFL chairman / owner should be allowed to put in as much as he wishes (possibly capped at parachute payments in championship) provided its as equity or zero rated unsecured loans. Will avoid any vultures but level the playing field in EFL relative to PL failures. I will push for this as EFL owners conferences and meetings when I'm in charge An alternative would be for all contracts to have a mandatory relegation clause ensuring a 80% reduction on relegation with no parachute payments payable Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tewksbury Posted March 13 Share Posted March 13 3 minutes ago, Andyben said: I still believe that any EFL chairman / owner should be allowed to put in as much as he wishes (possibly capped at parachute payments in championship) provided its as equity or zero rated unsecured loans. Will avoid any vultures but level the playing field in EFL relative to PL failures. I will push for this as EFL owners conferences and meetings when I'm in charge That's pretty much what SCMP in L1 and 2 do. Owner funding counts as turnover as long as it has no strings attached, so no loans, has to be a gift. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tewksbury Posted March 13 Share Posted March 13 5 minutes ago, Andyben said: An alternative would be for all contracts to have a mandatory relegation clause ensuring a 80% reduction on relegation with no parachute payments payable Then you'd have 10 teams with 50 man squads with all the best players and the rest of the league loaning them out as nobody would sign permanently. The league would go the way of LaLiga and the others, losing money. Just take a leaf out of the SCMP book. On relegation, contracts over 1 year signed the previous summer don't count towards the salary cap. So when we went down, Palmer, Pato etc. didn't count towards the cap in L1. Just guarantee the contracts. The EPL pays the wages of any player signed the previous summer on a 2+ year deal up to a certain limit. Teams can still sign better players, but can't take the piss by selling them and using the PP as well. They can have one or the other. So you sign a player on 100k p/w. On relegation, that 100k is paid, so you can afford to keep him, but if you sell him you get nothing from the EPL. That's about as fair as it's going to get and still achieve the stated aim of parachute payments. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KrolMong Posted March 13 Share Posted March 13 27 minutes ago, Andyben said: Yes, but it's starting at 85% not 70% and I think they're waiting t see what new regulator is appointed. This is why they didn't sign off the increased efl cash Ahh. Makes sense. This makes sense because you have to become a commercially viable business. UEFA think this might get rid of the PL monopoly. It won’t. The people who run the prem are commercial and marketing monsters. The one in places like Spain, Germany and Italy are not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mkowl Posted March 13 Share Posted March 13 What would be funny is if the EPL continue to dither on a deal, a regulator gets appointed and says 50% of the TV money goes to the pyramid 2 1 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.