Premier League clubs agree to a spending cap

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football...s/cpegd3dy8j7o

Good news this - it'll be interesting to see who voted for and against

Originally Posted by wiganste

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football...s/cpegd3dy8j7o

Good news this - it'll be interesting to see who voted for and against

We voted against it as did City and Villa

Does this replace FFP?

Surely City will just carry on paying a fee to a club, then pay them and the player more than declared through other companies - just like they've been allegedly doing for years?

And then does it hinder us just as we've got capable people in?

It will be interesting to see how Utd voted - could see the Glazers well up for something like this - who holds the power ??

Originally Posted by Parlabane

It will be interesting to see how Utd voted - could see the Glazers well up for something like this - who holds the power ??

Originally Posted by flixton

We voted against it as did City and Villa

Originally Posted by Parlabane

It will be interesting to see how Utd voted - could see the Glazers well up for something like this - who holds the power ??

We voted against it. So did City and Villa. Chelsea abstained and all the others voted in favour.

Will be interesting to see how United voted.

Originally Posted by Jack Duckworth

Will be interesting to see how United voted.

apparently we voted against it.

be interesting to see how city and villa voted.

Tachio nuts

I find my curiosity aroused as to the formal indication of choice on the matter, primarily by Manchester United, but also, though much less enthusiastically, city and villa.

I’m curious as to how Manchester United football club voted on this.

The moment this is announced we put everyone up for sale…

Originally Posted by NedKelly

The moment this is announced we put everyone up for sale…

Who voted for that though?

So the short of it is:

Clubs can spend a max of 85% of their revenue on wages, transfer fees and agents fees. Clubs in Europe can only spend 70% as it's assumed their revenues are much higher.

We're at around £800m a year in revenue. So (if we're in Europe) our cap would be £560m. Player wages come to about £200m a year, we spend about £150m a year on transfers. Agent fees are around £35m a year. So we'd be £175m under the cap.

It wont effect City as they apparently have similar revenues to us and apparently have lower wages.

The other proposal (anchoring) is that the limit is 5x the amount paid in TV rights to the team that earned the least. That's currently £115m so everyone would be under that too.

I'm not sure what the point is to be honest. Unless they're going to come up with something much stricter, everyone will pass it.

Not entirely sure why we voted against it to be honest. It seems like it could only benefit us. It would make it difficult for smaller clubs to compete.

Originally Posted by magic_cantona

Who voted for that though?

SJR apparently it seems he has seen enough to convince him that most of our players area mixture of tool downers cowards or simply never gonna be good enough!

Spending caps are utterly pointless unless everyone has accurate accounting practices. I can think of one or two clubs that don't

Love reading all the rattled Geordies on twitter.

Originally Posted by Lok

So the short of it is:

Clubs can spend a max of 85% of their revenue on wages, transfer fees and agents fees. Clubs in Europe can only spend 70% as it's assumed their revenues are much higher.

We're at around £800m a year in revenue. So (if we're in Europe) our cap would be £560m. Player wages come to about £200m a year, we spend about £150m a year on transfers. Agent fees are around £35m a year. So we'd be £175m under the cap.

It wont effect City as they apparently have similar revenues to us and apparently have lower wages.

The other proposal (anchoring) is that the limit is 5x the amount paid in TV rights to the team that earned the least. That's currently £115m so everyone would be under that too.

I'm not sure what the point is to be honest. Unless they're going to come up with something much stricter, everyone will pass it.

Not entirely sure why we voted against it to be honest. It seems like it could only benefit us. It would make it difficult for smaller clubs to compete.

It’s the opposite of that basically. The gap between richer and poorer has been growing, this future proofs smaller clubs from the gap getting bigger and the reason they introduced such a generous cap was so that it would pass. More likely than not a future regulator would cut the 5:1 ratio.

Originally Posted by Chris Quayd

It’s the opposite of that basically. The gap between richer and poorer has been growing, this future proofs smaller clubs from the gap getting bigger and the reason they introduced such a generous cap was so that it would pass. More likely than not a future regulator would cut the 5:1 ratio.

exactly. currently our spending cap is a function of our revenue. this proposes it would be a function of Sheffield united's revenue.

it's a major (positive) change, even if it wouldn't have a day 1 impact