|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2024 15:42:28 GMT
Interesting timing with the Man City legal challenge. You won't be surprised to know we are one of the clubs that are fighting for a change. Wonder what the new proposals are from those clubs?
|
|
|
|
Post by noustie on Jun 5, 2024 15:46:30 GMT
Interesting timing with the Man City legal challenge. You won't be surprised to know we are one of the clubs that are fighting for a change. Wonder what the new proposals are from those clubs? Hope Coates just bursts in with the dong hanging out, points and enquires - 'yes or no?' |
|
|
|
Post by GeneralFaye on Jun 5, 2024 15:57:48 GMT
How many filthy rich owners do we have in the championship? If there's 16, can't see why they wouldn't be in favour of this.
|
|
|
|
Post by thornestein on Jun 5, 2024 16:28:49 GMT
How many filthy rich owners do we have in the championship? If there's 16, can't see why they wouldn't be in favour of this. it should happen regardless, ffp is a joke , it prevents teams buying from poorer teams who desperately need the money |
|
|
|
Post by GeneralFaye on Jun 5, 2024 16:56:46 GMT
How many filthy rich owners do we have in the championship? If there's 16, can't see why they wouldn't be in favour of this. it should happen regardless, ffp is a joke , it prevents teams buying from poorer teams who desperately need the money The rules are a joke, I agree. They were brought in to stop clubs going under by spending beyond their means. Thing is, if the football league were more vigilant in regards to who can own football clubs and can have proof of funds, that would stop it from happening. A more stringent process into club ownership is where the focus should be, in a nutshell. |
|
|
|
Post by Laughing Gravy on Jun 5, 2024 18:10:28 GMT
it should happen regardless, ffp is a joke , it prevents teams buying from poorer teams who desperately need the money The rules are a joke, I agree. They were brought in to stop clubs going under by spending beyond their means. Thing is, if the football league were more vigilant in regards to who can own football clubs and can have proof of funds, that would stop it from happening. A more stringent process into club ownership is where the focus should be, in a nutshell. And closer monitoring of club finances and speedier action when something amiss is found. |
|
|
|
Post by march4 on Jun 5, 2024 18:20:45 GMT
Let’s hope this is the end of FFP.
|
|
|
|
Post by FullerMagic on Jun 5, 2024 18:21:09 GMT
uk.sports.yahoo.com/news/championship-war-over-spending-plans-152345031.htmlChampionship at war over spending plans as clubs warn of financial oblivionJohn Percy Championship clubs are locked in battle over proposed new spending rules, ahead of a crunch EFL meeting on Friday. Leeds, Hull City, Stoke, West Brom, Swansea and Cardiff are understood to be leading the charge to ease restrictions on spending amid growing anger over the Premier League’s failure to agree a ‘New Deal’. A number of Championship clubs are also in danger of breaching profitability and sustainability rules and it is argued that scrapping the current financial controls is the only option to avoid a future crisis. One of the preferred proposals is to mirror Uefa’s newly introduced 70 per cent squad ratio for the 2025-26 season, though sources claim other alternatives will be discussed. Senior Championship officials will meet in the Cotswolds on Friday to discuss what is now a very hot issue, with a two-thirds majority required from the 24 clubs to trigger a vote. Hull City’s vice-chairman Tan Kesler is set to join the Football League’s three-person board, replacing former Millwall chief executive Steve Kavanagh, and is understood to be a prominent figure in the debate. Sources have claimed that tension is growing between clubs in the league over the future of financial controls, with some arguing that lifting limits on spending could threaten a repeat of Derby’s flirtation with oblivion two years ago. These latest plans are seen as hugely significant, and allowing clubs to spend 70 per cent of their revenue on wages, transfers and agent fees would follow a recent move by Uefa if it was agreed by the majority. The Premier League and EFL has so far failed to agree the ‘New Deal’ on funding, despite frequent meetings to thrash out a resolution. In a statement in March, the EFL said it was “clearly disappointed at their repeated failure to put forward any new funding offer for EFL clubs that would have significant benefits for the entire football pyramid. “The EFL has repeatedly said that financial redistribution coupled with enhanced cost controls are needed to help achieve its over-riding objective of making EFL clubs financially sustainable and competitive, so that they can continue to serve their supporters and communities long into the future, no matter what level of the pyramid they play in.” It is understood there could be a vote on bringing in new regulations at the Premier League’s annual general meeting this week, but many Championship clubs are sceptical.
|
|
|
|
Post by LGH87 on Jun 5, 2024 18:21:58 GMT
How many filthy rich owners do we have in the championship? If there's 16, can't see why they wouldn't be in favour of this. it should happen regardless, ffp is a joke , it prevents teams buying from poorer teams who desperately need the money This point is often overlooked but it’s exactly why it’s there. It keeps the gap bigger for the elite. |
|
|
|
Post by bolders on Jun 5, 2024 20:22:18 GMT
Will it be a good thing changing the Millwall guy for the Hull guy when it comes to a decision. My thinking is that Millwall never seem to have a lot of money compared to other teams so keeping the old rules would benefit them more than a free for all.
|
|
|
|
Post by cheekymatt71 on Jun 5, 2024 21:58:27 GMT
Im probably in a minority of one here as a Stoke fan but I dont want football to continue to unlimited spending power.
Yes we have rich owners that are willing to put extra money in to get to the promised land of Premier League football.
BUT
Football is now just being ruined by money, and I dont want to support the continuation of that problem
YES there are major problems around FFP and the fact it is blocking clubs from spending their way to the big time.
However by repealing these rules it wont fix anything - it will just lead back to ever spiralling player and agent wages with no end.
Football needs some kind of spending rules. A wages % of revenue seems the most sensible - but of course that also empowers the bigger clubs over the smaller clubs and keeps the pyramid as it is. That will seriously limit the chances of smaller clubs even more. Long-term it will mean Stoke will and will always be a Championship club.
Whilst none of the solutions are perfect football needs some serious control on money and power. I just thinking changing these current FFP rules, reeks of self entitlement and doesnt help the wider good of the game.
|
|
|
|
Post by maninasuitcase on Jun 6, 2024 0:03:58 GMT
Let's see if Bristol shitty are on board with it.
|
|
|
|
Post by FullerMagic on Jun 6, 2024 9:23:35 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by bolders on Jun 6, 2024 9:55:58 GMT
Let's see if Bristol shitty are on board with it. Not a chance they want it to be a closer playing field because it gives them a chance. If we were and a few others were allowed to spend more they would have less of a chance of making the prem. even though he is worth a couple of quid £1.7b |
|
|
|
Post by nottsover60 on Jun 6, 2024 10:19:22 GMT
Im probably in a minority of one here as a Stoke fan but I dont want football to continue to unlimited spending power. Yes we have rich owners that are willing to put extra money in to get to the promised land of Premier League football. BUT Football is now just being ruined by money, and I dont want to support the continuation of that problem YES there are major problems around FFP and the fact it is blocking clubs from spending their way to the big time. However by repealing these rules it wont fix anything - it will just lead back to ever spiralling player and agent wages with no end. Football needs some kind of spending rules. A wages % of revenue seems the most sensible - but of course that also empowers the bigger clubs over the smaller clubs and keeps the pyramid as it is. That will seriously limit the chances of smaller clubs even more. Long-term it will mean Stoke will and will always be a Championship club. Whilst none of the solutions are perfect football needs some serious control on money and power. I just thinking changing these current FFP rules, reeks of self entitlement and doesnt help the wider good of the game. I'm definitely in your minority. I don't agree with the current rules but there has to be control over what clubs can spend. The biggest problem at the moment is that FFP does not do what it is there for. The gap is so big to the Premier and the punishments seem to have become so inconsequential that a lot of clubs risk the gamble of breaking the rules to get to the promised land. It's no surprise that two of the clubs supporting Man City are Newcastle and Villa and I have also been told Forest are another. As Stoke fans I think we have to be careful not to view it from the angle that we have rich owners but keep a focus on what would happen if we lost those owners. Unlimited investment sounds great but what if, as will happen one day, the club lose those owners. The Coates are very responsible but when they leave you can imagine we would have an enormous wage bill. Who pays that for the next two/three years if rich owners don't buy? What if we get into a position like Derby did where the new owners invest money they don't have and the club ends up in administration?Derby were lucky to find someone who would take on the club and clear the debts. Bury weren't so lucky. Something has to be in place to stop those situations. We are lucky we don't have to worry about this scenario at the moment but it is quite possible that at some time in the future, without financial restraints put in. place we would. Consider how many clubs are already breaking the rules and receiving penalties. How many of those would still exist in ten years if their is no limit to spending money clubs don't have. |
|
|
|
Post by Royal Donut on Jun 6, 2024 10:24:30 GMT
The rule that encourages increased ticket prices, while the billionaire owners want to help but get punished for doing so, definitely needs looking at.
|
|
|
|
Post by AlliG on Jun 6, 2024 10:31:32 GMT
The rule that encourages increased ticket prices, while the billionaire owners want to help but get punished for doing so, definitely needs looking at. Won't changing to restricting wages to 70% of turnover have exactly the same effect? I don't have a clue what the answer is, but, making it beneficial to increase the price that fans pay doesn't seem the right way to go. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2024 11:10:46 GMT
Im probably in a minority of one here as a Stoke fan but I dont want football to continue to unlimited spending power. Yes we have rich owners that are willing to put extra money in to get to the promised land of Premier League football. BUT Football is now just being ruined by money, and I dont want to support the continuation of that problem YES there are major problems around FFP and the fact it is blocking clubs from spending their way to the big time. However by repealing these rules it wont fix anything - it will just lead back to ever spiralling player and agent wages with no end. Football needs some kind of spending rules. A wages % of revenue seems the most sensible - but of course that also empowers the bigger clubs over the smaller clubs and keeps the pyramid as it is. That will seriously limit the chances of smaller clubs even more. Long-term it will mean Stoke will and will always be a Championship club. Whilst none of the solutions are perfect football needs some serious control on money and power. I just thinking changing these current FFP rules, reeks of self entitlement and doesnt help the wider good of the game. It’s a stance that can only be solved by FIFA. So, it won’t happen. Laws invoked within a single country have to balance the risk with the issue of keeping the top clubs highly competitive. Football is a luxury item. It would not shock me if local support moved away from most clubs outside of the lower leagues in the next decade or two. |
|
|
|
Post by baconburger on Jun 6, 2024 13:24:42 GMT
Im probably in a minority of one here as a Stoke fan but I dont want football to continue to unlimited spending power. Yes we have rich owners that are willing to put extra money in to get to the promised land of Premier League football. BUT Football is now just being ruined by money, and I dont want to support the continuation of that problem YES there are major problems around FFP and the fact it is blocking clubs from spending their way to the big time. However by repealing these rules it wont fix anything - it will just lead back to ever spiralling player and agent wages with no end. Football needs some kind of spending rules. A wages % of revenue seems the most sensible - but of course that also empowers the bigger clubs over the smaller clubs and keeps the pyramid as it is. That will seriously limit the chances of smaller clubs even more. Long-term it will mean Stoke will and will always be a Championship club. Whilst none of the solutions are perfect football needs some serious control on money and power. I just thinking changing these current FFP rules, reeks of self entitlement and doesnt help the wider good of the game. I'm definitely in your minority. I don't agree with the current rules but there has to be control over what clubs can spend. The biggest problem at the moment is that FFP does not do what it is there for. The gap is so big to the Premier and the punishments seem to have become so inconsequential that a lot of clubs risk the gamble of breaking the rules to get to the promised land. It's no surprise that two of the clubs supporting Man City are Newcastle and Villa and I have also been told Forest are another. As Stoke fans I think we have to be careful not to view it from the angle that we have rich owners but keep a focus on what would happen if we lost those owners. Unlimited investment sounds great but what if, as will happen one day, the club lose those owners. The Coates are very responsible but when they leave you can imagine we would have an enormous wage bill. Who pays that for the next two/three years if rich owners don't buy? What if we get into a position like Derby did where the new owners invest money they don't have and the club ends up in administration?Derby were lucky to find someone who would take on the club and clear the debts. Bury weren't so lucky. Something has to be in place to stop those situations. We are lucky we don't have to worry about this scenario at the moment but it is quite possible that at some time in the future, without financial restraints put in. place we would. Consider how many clubs are already breaking the rules and receiving penalties. How many of those would still exist in ten years if their is no limit to spending money clubs don't have. It’s part of why the independent football regulator was proposed. We can’t have clubs blocking change that is for the good of the game out of self interest. Clubs with less access to resources will block change because they see the regs as somehow keeping them in touch with clubs like Stoke. As I understand it that was never the intention of the regs. They’re either there to stop clubs getting into financial peril or they’re there to level the playing field. If it’s the former it’s relatively simple to allow virtually unlimited forward funded investment. If it’s meant to level the playing field let’s have a completely level playing field where all clubs in the same league are only allowed the same amount of resources. The current situation does neither thing well, the bottom line is some clubs can’t afford to lose £39M/£41.5M over a rolling 3 years and remain a viable business. As if all but a handful of them are viable businesses anyway. Man City smashed their way into the elite without ever putting the future of the club in jeopardy. Roman Abramovic did wonders for Chelsea and eventually walked away from £2B worth of debt to him. I don’t want to prevent such occurrences. I wouldn’t allow him to build all that debt on the club but under a forward funding model I’m pretty sure he’d have spent in the same manner anyway. If these regs are locking in the status quo whether intended or not clubs outside the elite have a duty to try to circumvent them. They’re creating a situation that’s even worse than what they’re allegedly trying to prevent. |
|
|
|
Post by nottsover60 on Jun 6, 2024 13:42:46 GMT
I'm definitely in your minority. I don't agree with the current rules but there has to be control over what clubs can spend. The biggest problem at the moment is that FFP does not do what it is there for. The gap is so big to the Premier and the punishments seem to have become so inconsequential that a lot of clubs risk the gamble of breaking the rules to get to the promised land. It's no surprise that two of the clubs supporting Man City are Newcastle and Villa and I have also been told Forest are another. As Stoke fans I think we have to be careful not to view it from the angle that we have rich owners but keep a focus on what would happen if we lost those owners. Unlimited investment sounds great but what if, as will happen one day, the club lose those owners. The Coates are very responsible but when they leave you can imagine we would have an enormous wage bill. Who pays that for the next two/three years if rich owners don't buy? What if we get into a position like Derby did where the new owners invest money they don't have and the club ends up in administration?Derby were lucky to find someone who would take on the club and clear the debts. Bury weren't so lucky. Something has to be in place to stop those situations. We are lucky we don't have to worry about this scenario at the moment but it is quite possible that at some time in the future, without financial restraints put in. place we would. Consider how many clubs are already breaking the rules and receiving penalties. How many of those would still exist in ten years if their is no limit to spending money clubs don't have. It’s part of why the independent football regulator was proposed. We can’t have clubs blocking change that is for the good of the game out of self interest. Clubs with less access to resources will block change because they see the regs as somehow keeping them in touch with clubs like Stoke. As I understand it that was never the intention of the regs. They’re either there to stop clubs getting into financial peril or they’re there to level the playing field. If it’s the former it’s relatively simple to allow virtually unlimited forward funded investment. If it’s meant to level the playing field let’s have a completely level playing field where all clubs in the same league are only allowed the same amount of resources. The current situation does neither thing well, the bottom line is some clubs can’t afford to lose £39M/£41.5M over a rolling 3 years and remain a viable business. As if all but a handful of them are viable businesses anyway. Man City smashed their way into the elite without ever putting the future of the club in jeopardy. Roman Abramovic did wonders for Chelsea and eventually walked away from £2B worth of debt to him. I don’t want to prevent such occurrences. I wouldn’t allow him to build all that debt on the club but under a forward funding model I’m pretty sure he’d have spent in the same manner anyway. If these regs are locking in the status quo whether intended or not clubs outside the elite have a duty to try to circumvent them. They’re creating a situation that’s even worse than what they’re allegedly trying to prevent. Agree in general. I don't see why the playing field should be levelled to the lowest but in the interest of competition there should be a levelling to give every club a fair chance. The Premier has become very boring because teams like Chelsea, Man City, plus Villa and Newcastle have invested far more than the rest without having the actual finances to do so. Chelsea have struggled since Abramovich left but still are paying eye watering fees for multiple players. Football seems to have become a competition to see who can spend the most and buy the most players rather than who can develop their own players and team in a financially viable way. For evidence of this you just need to look at Everton who for three years spent more than they could afford in an effort to become a top six club(my son's father in law is a toffee and spent many summers boasting about how much Everton had spent and having a little wager with my son that they would finish higher than Utd which made my son a bit richer every year). I know we look secure but if the unimaginable happened, as it did to the Leicester owners a few years back, and we lost the whole Coates family in one tragic accident where would that leave the club? They would still have the wage bill and other commiments to pay but if Bet 365 withdrew their backing in light of the ban on gambling adverts, we would need to find a new backer prepared to take on the debts and wage bill. If we didn't it wouldn't be long before we were in administration. For that reason even the clubs who seem to be secure need to be curbed in their spending in some way. Clubs need to be able to carry on independently from their rich owners. |
|
|
|
Post by skemstokie on Jun 6, 2024 14:37:19 GMT
The rule that encourages increased ticket prices, while the billionaire owners want to help but get punished for doing so, definitely needs looking at. Won't changing to restricting wages to 70% of turnover have exactly the same effect? I don't have a clue what the answer is, but, making it beneficial to increase the price that fans pay doesn't seem the right way to go. I think first step should be a limit on how many players a club can sign,richer clubs hoover up any promising youngsters then loan them out to less wealthy clubs limit sqaud sizes and some of those youngsters would sign for less wealthy and could turn into golden eggs . |
|
|
|
Post by march4 on Jun 7, 2024 9:21:00 GMT
Allowing Championship owners to match the parachute payments of clubs relegated from the Prem would be a good starting point with this money set aside before the season begins.
I’m in favour of a salary cap but this is an emotive topic especially as George Eastham is one of our club heroes.
|
|
|
|
Post by benjaminbiscuit on Jun 7, 2024 9:23:16 GMT
Allowing Championship owners to match the parachute payments of clubs relegated from the Prem would be a good starting point with this money set aside before the season begins. I’m in favour of a salary cap but this is an emotive topic especially as George Eastham is one of our club heroes. March that's simple irrefutable and spot on logic and with money up front defies any ffp logic |
|
|
|
Post by goldcoaststokie on Jun 7, 2024 9:31:28 GMT
Allowing Championship owners to match the parachute payments of clubs relegated from the Prem would be a good starting point with this money set aside before the season begins. I’m in favour of a salary cap but this is an emotive topic especially as George Eastham is one of our club heroes. I like this idea. I’d also reduce the parachute payments dramatically after first year. Another idea might be to only allow newly promoted clubs to sign players with a relegation clause. Maybe 50% or something. For first 3 years in prem. Take pressure off if relegated?? |
|
|
|
Post by tpholloway1 on Jun 7, 2024 9:40:35 GMT
Allowing Championship owners to match the parachute payments of clubs relegated from the Prem would be a good starting point with this money set aside before the season begins. I’m in favour of a salary cap but this is an emotive topic especially as George Eastham is one of our club heroes. What's George Eastham got ot do with a salary cap? He was involved in the retain and transfer case. I think you're getting it mixed up with Jimmy Hill and the maximum wage case, both in the same era. |
|
|
|
Post by march4 on Jun 7, 2024 11:30:53 GMT
Allowing Championship owners to match the parachute payments of clubs relegated from the Prem would be a good starting point with this money set aside before the season begins. I’m in favour of a salary cap but this is an emotive topic especially as George Eastham is one of our club heroes. What's George Eastham got ot do with a salary cap? He was involved in the retain and transfer case. I think you're getting it mixed up with Jimmy Hill and the maximum wage case, both in the same era. I was just equating it to footballers’ rights in general. |
|
|
|
Post by gingerninja on Jun 7, 2024 11:32:43 GMT
Is there likely to be any decision today or in the near future?.
|
|
|
|
Post by FullerMagic on Jun 7, 2024 15:47:39 GMT
www.efl.com/news/2024/june/07/efl-statement--financial-controls/Separately, in the Championship, Clubs have also committed to change and agreed in principle to target the end of the calendar year to determine how future cost controls in the division will work. Clubs will now consider multiple options to enhance or replace the current Profitability and Sustainability Rules (P&S) via a new working party that will represent the views of all 24 Clubs before deciding on the most appropriate direction of travel.
|
|
|
|
Post by thornestein on Jun 7, 2024 15:55:00 GMT
The rule that encourages increased ticket prices, while the billionaire owners want to help but get punished for doing so, definitely needs looking at. Won't changing to restricting wages to 70% of turnover have exactly the same effect? I don't have a clue what the answer is, but, making it beneficial to increase the price that fans pay doesn't seem the right way to go. the owners would be allowed put more money into the club |
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Jun 7, 2024 16:24:19 GMT
www.efl.com/news/2024/june/07/efl-statement--financial-controls/Separately, in the Championship, Clubs have also committed to change and agreed in principle to target the end of the calendar year to determine how future cost controls in the division will work. Clubs will now consider multiple options to enhance or replace the current Profitability and Sustainability Rules (P&S) via a new working party that will represent the views of all 24 Clubs before deciding on the most appropriate direction of travel. genuine change or kicking the can down the road? |
|
