Czarnikjak Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 2 minutes ago, Deano & Dalian's Umbrella said: What about this though ? https://x.com/johntownley11/status/1784962074273026206 John Townley is usually clueless on this topic, but this tweet is correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeordieVillan Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 53 minutes ago, ender4 said: It’s funny that we both read the same articles and have interpreted it completely different. As far as I can tell, and I’m pretty confident that is what The Times and The Athletic are trying to say, is that this new fixed cap will REPLACE the 85% PSR limits. The key word there in both articles is the word “replace”. Of course, they might be wrong themselves, but that is what they are telling us. In my interpretation of course. Ultimately the 85% doesn’t matter, as we will need to comply with the European cap, whatever that is, assuming we are in Europe or aiming to be there again the season after failure. There will be 2 limiting factors, the hard cap in the league at home, and the percentage cap in Europe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeordieVillan Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 11 minutes ago, bobzy said: I think you're missing what OP is saying. It isn't "£400m on transfers", it's "£400m on everything including transfers (amortised) and wages and staff costs and buying toilet roll and..." It’s this, or if you are in Europe, the lesser of this or ultimately 70% of your turnover. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaVilla Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 14 minutes ago, Deano & Dalian's Umbrella said: What about this though ? https://x.com/johntownley11/status/1784962074273026206 how on earth is it fair or reasonable for clubs in Europe to have to reach a 70% cap, while all the other non european teams can go to 85%? thats mental. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobzy Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 Just now, MaVilla said: how on earth is it fair or reasonable for clubs in Europe to have to reach a 70% cap, while all the other non european teams can go to 85%? thats mental. Because teams in Europe get more revenue so spending a lower ratio "evens the field" a little bit more 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaVilla Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 (edited) 4 minutes ago, bobzy said: Because teams in Europe get more revenue so spending a lower ratio "evens the field" a little bit more maybe clubs in the CL it might even it, but i doubt Europa or Conference would?, they money isnt large in Europa, and its pennies in reality for the Conference League. u club with a turnover of 300m, 85% is 255m, 70% is 210m, so a 45m difference, only the CL could have a chance of making that difference up, and if you dont get out of the groups, i doubt you could pull in 45m in prize money etc? Edited April 29 by MaVilla Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wishywashy Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 (edited) 1 hour ago, ender4 said: It’s funny that we both read the same articles and have interpreted it completely different. As far as I can tell, and I’m pretty confident that is what The Times and The Athletic are trying to say, is that this new fixed cap will REPLACE the 85% PSR limits. The key word there in both articles is the word “replace”. Of course, they might be wrong themselves, but that is what they are telling us. In my interpretation of course. I get what you mean in how they can be perceived both ways, and some articles are definitely saying it like you're interpreting it (like the BBC), hence why we've both been confused all day! I've found that The Guardian takes the winners medal for being the least ambiguous about its claims. https://www.theguardian.com/football/2024/apr/29/majority-of-premier-league-clubs-vote-in-favour-of-exploring-spending-cap-plans Quote The Premier League hopes to put a full set of new financial regulations to the vote at its AGM in June. The league has agreed to go ahead with controls that would limit clubs’ spending on player-related costs to 85% of their revenues (or 70% in the case of clubs playing in Europe). These “squad cost ratios” would run alongside anchoring, if approved. I think it's a case of we'll have to see what happens in June when it's all formalised: it clearly hasn't been very well communicated in the press releases that have been going round! Edited April 29 by wishywashy 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobzy Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 8 minutes ago, MaVilla said: maybe clubs in the CL it might even it, but i doubt Europa or Conference would?, they money isnt large in Europa, and its pennies in reality for the Conference League. u club with a turnover of 300m, 85% is 255m, 70% is 210m, so a 45m difference, only the CL could have a chance of making that difference up, and if you dont get out of the groups, i doubt you could pull in 45m in prize money etc? But if you're not in Europe at all and are a smaller club with, say, £120m turnover then it makes the league slightly more competitive in terms of being able to spend a bit more. It won't bridge the gap to the large sides, but it helps a bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stewiek2 Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 (edited) IIf I look at that chart that Maguire tweeted it's all about certain levels and current squad strength as well. So we can spend £211m compared to, say, Everton who can spend £250m, or Brentford who can spend £353m. However, for what these clubs need to spend to get to where we are you'd say they'll get short changed, whereas for our £211m and the revenue from CL, Adidas and Betano sponsorship and more, we can buy fewer players but higher quality as the squad is at such a higher level, along with a higher level manager and coaching staff. We've players out long term to come back as well. We're now at the level in fairness Spurs should have been over the period it's took us to get up and get to this level of competing, ie great squad and now can have a summer and January strategy. Hell we've shown this season we have... A couple of big deals in the summer and look at gems in January. The plan is in place, as shown this season by the Don and Monchi. They won't be phased by these new changes. They've an obvious plan. Rogers is proof of that. And if you're a player. Do you join champions league Aston Villa and play for Emery or Everton and Dyche or Brentford and Frank having seen how much Emery improves you as a player. Look at Ollie, Dibu, Dougie, the quick rise of Rogers JJ, I could go on. We'll be fine. Edited April 29 by stewiek2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MellbergsBeard Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 Would you take any of them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stewiek2 Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 17 minutes ago, MaVilla said: how on earth is it fair or reasonable for clubs in Europe to have to reach a 70% cap, while all the other non european teams can go to 85%? thats mental. I guess because UEFA see clubs competing in Europe as a sides who get more global exposure, TV money, hence the knocking of more revenue compared to sides outside europe. Surely the UEFA cap should be based on having the players you register for their competitions wage cap equal 70% but you can have the 85% for domestic competition? That to me is a balanced compromise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stewiek2 Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 36 minutes ago, bobzy said: I think you're missing what OP is saying. It isn't "£400m on transfers", it's "£400m on everything including transfers (amortised) and wages and staff costs and buying toilet roll and..." Ah that's okay NSWE will just buy Costco and we'll have as much bog roll in bulk as we want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubberman Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 13 minutes ago, stewiek2 said: balanced compromise. Well that's that idea in the bin for starters. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juanpablosaliceband Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 I don’t see how this rule change can be bad for Villa in the long run. The 70% Europe versus 85% non Europe cap was already in place as far as I know so no new downside there. Smaller clubs might have a chance to make up ground in the short term but this change should ultimately improve our chances of catching the top clubs. A levelling of the financial playing field should benefit the traditional big clubs with strong fanbases in my opinion, such as Villa, Man United, Arsenal, Liverpool, Everton, Spurs, Newcastle. As things were before money became the dominant factor. Good ownership, management, scouting, coaching, youth, infrastructure, etc. would be the other differentiators. I think we are well set up to benefit from this long term. I’m conscious we seem to have voted against it though so curious to hear more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deano & Dalian's Umbrella Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 1 hour ago, MaVilla said: how on earth is it fair or reasonable for clubs in Europe to have to reach a 70% cap, while all the other non european teams can go to 85%? thats mental. I thought this was just referring to different rules for uefa and the premier league Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted April 30 Share Posted April 30 7 hours ago, Czarnikjak said: No, he got few things wrong there. He forgot about 85% limit for clubs that don't qualify for Europe. Also, when he says "to spend £400m on transfers" this is plainly wrong. There's no limit on "transfers"...only squad costs (wages, amortisation and agent fees) Also, his argument is self-refuting. Even if the 85% squad cost-revenue didn't exist, what would be the point of Bournemouth spending £400m on squad costs, finishing 7th, and then having to sell all their best players just to enter UEFA competition? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alreadyexists Posted April 30 VT Supporter Share Posted April 30 I’m baffled… is this good or bad for us? Or do we not know yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S-Platt Posted April 30 VT Supporter Share Posted April 30 19 minutes ago, alreadyexists said: I’m baffled… is this good or bad for us? Or do we not know yet? As we voted against it I guess we are not happy with it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Czarnikjak Posted April 30 Share Posted April 30 25 minutes ago, alreadyexists said: I’m baffled… is this good or bad for us? Or do we not know yet? There are 2 parts to this new regulations: 1. Anchor Cap - this can only be good for us and 90% of Premier League 2. 85-70 Cap - good for our owners wallets, bad for our competitiveness Both statements apply only to our current situation, and could change as our situation changes. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duke313 Posted April 30 Share Posted April 30 12 hours ago, sidcow said: Plenty on here would love that. Week after week of getting absolutely smashed by the "glamour" clubs with zero chance of actually winning anything. But we get to watch Real and Bayern at Villa Park so that's OK. We beat a few of the glamour clubs this season already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts