Season › 2012-13 › News
PL Chairmen agree break-even aim
But new rules still need to be worked out
The Premier League took a significant step towards spending controls after agreeing in principle to make breaking even a necessity for clubs. The move was agreed by the majority of the 20 chairmen despite some ongoing opposition from a minority of clubs at a meeting in London today.However the exact details of the spending controls have yet to be agreed — specifically around how much wealthy owners can put into the club to cover losses, sources close to the process have disclosed.
The club chairmen have now asked Premier League executives to bring back detailed plans on the spending controls for the next meeting on February 6, and on proposals to cap wage rises for players in the short term.
It is understood Manchester City, Fulham and Aston Villa remained opposed to any controls but only 14 of the 20 clubs are needed for the moves to go through.
Manchester United and Arsenal have been pushing for a pure break-even system similar to Uefa's financial fair play scheme for clubs in European competition.
A group of other clubs, including Wigan and Chelsea, are also in favour of a break even system but argue that wealthy benefactors should be permitted to put extra investment into clubs. The sticking point to any agreement is how much investment should be allowed, but the majority of clubs are agreed that this should only be in the form of equity and not loans.
The issue of wage control for players has also received broad support from the chairmen but again the details has yet to be agreed.
Sunderland owner Ellis Short has led the campaigning on this issue, arguing that clubs should be limited to either an overall percentage salary increase for their squads, or a fixed figure.
Manchester City last week became the first club to announce that their annual wage bill has topped the £200M mark.
Quotes or other material sourced from Sporting Life
Reader Comments (18)
Note: the following content is not moderated or vetted by the site owners at the time of submission. Comments are the responsibility of the poster. Disclaimer
2 Posted 19/12/2012 at 09:29:53
So you can bet that if these proposals are voted through at their next meeting in February then their lawyers and accountants will have found ways to legally get round the new rules. I suppose even if they vote for a salary cap then somehow the players will get funded from sponsors for doing corporate days wink wink.
3 Posted 19/12/2012 at 09:27:07
4 Posted 19/12/2012 at 11:01:48
If we had the ability to sign a Van Persie or a Sneider or a Moutinho, do you think they would just go 'no problem lads, pay me half of what you're paying Baines or Felliani.'
There would be an exodus of top players to China or America or anywhere else where players can get silly money.
5 Posted 19/12/2012 at 11:17:41
If some miracle happens and we are sold to a wealthy benefactor, what are they going to be able to do? In fact, I'd wager this makes a sale even less likely.
6 Posted 19/12/2012 at 11:29:28
Chelsea and Man City don't want their sugar daddies to be hampered so they can provide for them in times of need(?) whilst Wigan don't want to lose the security and financial clout of Dave Whelan.
It would seem to me that Everton won't benefit from any new rules which may be adopted, although it would cover BK, he can say that we couldn't buy such and such a player or we have to sell our top players because it's against PL rules to do otherwise ....might have to get used to that one being trotted out every transfer window.
Of course it wouldn't be worth selling the club because a new owner wouldn't be able to invest in the club so you might as well stick with someone who can't invest in the club.
7 Posted 19/12/2012 at 11:40:07
It is idealistic still...and teams will of course look for ways around it, but it is the move in the right direction for the purposes of sustainability, even if it could be considered somewhat problematically economically.
8 Posted 19/12/2012 at 11:30:29
If an exremely wealthy club wants a star striker to sign for them, and the figures don't match their break even position, does anyone think it would scupper the deal?
9 Posted 19/12/2012 at 12:08:38
10 Posted 19/12/2012 at 12:12:56
But I can't see demand being inelastic in the face of ever increasing price rises. We don't get full houses for all games at GP because not enough people can afford ticket prices as they are.
12 Posted 19/12/2012 at 12:03:09
Its at least a step (all be it small) in the right direction but will probably not lead to much, already mentioned, for every rule some accountant/lawyer will find a way around it.
I think there should be a rule that no one person/company is allowed to own more than 49% of any club and that a supporters trust or equivalent should own at least 51% of the club. Also no club should be allowed to become over indebted, otherwise points will be deducted, it should not just happen when the club is in administration - by that stage its already too late.
Also a lot more prize money should be given to the lower leagues. It was a massive mistake by the FA to allow the premier league to be formed in the first place (not sure how much choice they had in the matter) as the lower leagues have been left far behind...
13 Posted 19/12/2012 at 14:06:26
14 Posted 19/12/2012 at 18:31:11
Do the redshite get an extra 20 million because they have a good commercial department? Or is it possibly something to do with the fact they are a worldwide brand due to winning the CL? Was Man City's extra 100 million in revenue due to a huge improvement in their commercial department, or more down to success on the field?
Do you also have inside info that the US do have aliens in area 51? Or maybe another slant on who killed JFK?
15 Posted 20/12/2012 at 09:58:55
Footballers are ludicrously overpaid for what they do (even the 'stars') and whilst I appreciate the premier league has to protect it's interests and won't want an exodus, I'd be more than happy to see the mercenaries fuck off elsewhere to get a payoff (more like Russia or China than US) and for more homegrown players to have a chance to develop their game even if it meant shitter football for a while and less 'English' teams in the Champions League.
To be honest, considering the ownership and playing roster, I'm not sure how 'English' any of the top 4 is anyway.
16 Posted 20/12/2012 at 10:30:07
If the likes of City and Chelsea were unable to grab all the players and then farm them out, it would make more players available to the rest of the clubs.
Availablility of players may increase competition and reduce wages a little.
17 Posted 20/12/2012 at 15:55:09
18 Posted 20/12/2012 at 22:58:21
That's not to say your suggestion is wrong. I suspect the whole focus of football is going to head east pretty quickly, following the money as everything does. The best players will go there, and our magnificent Premier League will disappear as quickly as it developed. Some teams like Chelsea and Man City will probably establish themselves over there as it becomes a global league. Where that leaves us is anyone's guess, probably relegated by default as we were when the Premier League started.
19 Posted 20/12/2012 at 23:46:33
The product is what it is, fantastic.
If you wanna watch shite then BBC Scotland is available on freeview.
Add Your Comments
In order to post a comment, you need to be logged in as a registered user of the site.
Or Sign up as a ToffeeWeb Member — it's free, takes just a few minutes and will allow you to post your comments on articles and Talking Points submissions across the site.


1 Posted 19/12/2012 at 08:11:22
Man City also announced commercial revenue approaching £100m through their
ludicrouslucrative sponsors with Abu Dhabi's airline, tourism board, mobile telephone operator etc. etc.Their new training ground development will also be vastly inflated so the costs are hidden as "allowable expenses".
The only possible good news for Everton in all this is the increase in domestic and overseas TV money from next season should see us breaking even (even allowing for debt servicing), provided the players (and manager!) don't start demanding increased money on their next contracts.
Unilateralism doesn't work in football - a single league, or club within that league refusing to pay "the going rate" would simply not be able to sign anyone, and would lose its top players.
Spain is also about to revise its tax laws. Currently there's an entertainers tax rate, which is a lower rate of tax to allow the likes of buskers etc. to make a living. Of course, it also applies to professional sports - so for years players could effectively be signed on tax-free contracts. Now that Spain has realised it's in the shit financially, that's due to expire within the next 18 months (the reason why Ronaldo is "unhappy" at Real Madrid and wants someone to pick up his £280k a week tax free packet elsewhere).
Richard Scudamore at the Premier League was quite open in admitting he expected the last domestic TV deal to come in at lower than this current one. The fact it came in so much higher suggests that it was all just bluster and that News International would pay to hold on to it's key business driver (look at how Fox in the US has suddenly gotten more involved).
NewsCorp is interested in buying into Formula 1. If the Premier League ever decides to list (it shouldn't), they'd be all over it.