I don’t think they need to write.
2 Likes
Ofcourse City and United voted against it. Some more info in tweet below.
https://twitter.com/SkySportsNews/status/1784951987311649153
Final vote in June.
1 Like
Be interesting to see how that loaning of players from Saudi will affect this…
No surprise that Utd and City voted against it, although Villa also voting against it did surprise me, thought that they would have been for a leveling of the playing field.
The other bit is ‘in principle’ meaning it could still be rejected at the AGM.
I know that FSG have always been keen on finding ways to level the playing field against the likes of City and Chelsea, so no surprise that we support it, but our wage bill has been reasonably high for the last few years as we went through the period of extending contracts rather than bringing in new players, so could this mean some of our higher wage earners might be on the move in the next 12-18 months? FSG striking early to get ahead of the curve sort of thing
Villa fans have been among the most vocal in complaints about spending limits. Apparently they only exist to prevent an up and coming side like villa breaking the big 6 stranglehold on the game.
Like a lot of clubs these days the ownership of Villa is pretty opaque, but their old Chinese owner was bought out by an consortium lead by an Egypt’s richest man and an American billionaire. They clearly have money to buy things like this but are not “compete with Oligarchs” rich. They were then additionally funded by an American investment group backed by mega corporation Comcast. How much money does it have and how much is it willing to put in to compete? Who the fuck knows, but they have spent well since taking over and Villa fans seem to believe there is more available should it be allowed.
3 Likes
Not sure how they think it will be bad when it will be anchored to the tv revenue of the lowest paid club, so it would work more in their favour I would have thought
For all the talk of plucky little Aston Villa, they have spent over 100m every year for the last five years.
3 Likes
Thanks @Limiescouse, makes it easier to understand their thinking in voting no
Since Southampton U18s beat Reading 9-0, Southampton (at U18/U21 and 1st team level combined) have played 7, lost 7, scored 6 and conceded 21.
There seems to have been a good number of massive blow outs recently at U18-21s. Is this remotely normal?
It’s normal to see big blowout but the last few weeks have been extreme. Man Utd knocking 9 past us, Southampton with 9 at Reading and Arsenal scoring 9 away at Norwich. I’m not sure if there is a root cause, other than squad age discrepancies, or it’s just a freaky bunch of results that happen to be grouped together.
1 Like
What could a spending cap look like?
Football finance expert Adam Davis believes that the proposed spending cap would allow clubs like Newcastle and Nottingham Forest to spend the amount they feel they need to in order to be competitive, but could also push some teams to financial breaking point.
“We don’t know the ins and outs of what the spend cap will include but our understanding is that the amount that is allowed to be spent is likely to be on player wages, amortisation and agent fees,” said Davis.
“That will be a fixed total based on the lowest amount of broadcasting money received in the Premier League, so whatever is earned by the 20th club. Over the last few years that has basically meant approximately £100m worth of broadcasting income, that is what the likes of Sheffield United will earn.
“The spend cap will be a hard multiple, and the rumoured amount is five times that amount, which would basically mean a spend cap of approximately £500m.
“From a good perspective, that will open up the likes of Aston Villa and Newcastle to spend more than what they currently have because under the current regulations it is tied to their own revenues.
“It would also mean under a new regulation, teams like Nottingham Forest could spend what they want to spend, or claim they need to spend, to stay competitive.
“A potential negative is that spending will increase in the Premier League to potentially unsustainable levels.
"The danger is that by saying you are able to spend more, it could be interpreted as you must spend more to remain competitive. We could potentially see more and more clubs pushing to breaking point.”
So from the sounds of it, it would actually benefit Villa as it would allow them to spend more than they currently are able to spend. Although having read a bit more about the proposal, it doesn’t sound like it would actually achieve the goal it is designed to reach.
1 Like
I don’t see how this spending cap is gonna help the premier league become sustainable financially while becoming more competitive.
We could see quite a few teams go the way of 2001-2007 Leeds United…
1 Like
I assume it will be what penalties are applied to it.
Seems the opposite of the talk recently perhaps maybe the money bags have been talking up stuff that isn’t true.
1 Like
Gives City enough time to call clubs loaning their players to say “I see our loanee is doing well, want to extend his loan?, and BTW, interesting vote by you the other day.”
Newcastle will be spending a lot of money very fast. Their current spending, compared to the ‘big six’ is small, meaning they will be able to go nuts.
Explains why they werent one of the clubs against it.
1 Like
One of the other big things is that it appears to further loosen restrictions on related party revenue so the expectation is Newcastle will very soon be one of the most commercially successful clubs in the world on the back on a mega deal to sell Rington tea in Saudi
1 Like
Surprising then that Citeh did not endorse it.
1 Like
Explains why they’ve been one of the teams lobbying these changes. Interesting that we seemed to have voted for - can only assume the maths makes sense for our position.