Premier League clubs narrowly agree to monetary limits

That said, it's 100% clear that something needs to be done to stop the game from eating itself and overpaying it's players (and the associated agents and hangers on) yet further. Whether this will actually discourage the rich man's play thing approach at Chelsea and City remains to be seen - City are trying to get around the UEFA sanctions by increasing their income via stupid-money shirt sponsorships/naming rights that are essentially cash injections from the owner with a different name.

What does this mean for Everton? Well, even running at an annual £10m loss (allowing for finance costs) probably not much. With the new income they can either operate at a profit or raise the cost base slightly, or both. We won't be hitting £35m annual loss anytime soon, as we don't have the backers to sustain it.

For the future it means that we won't be able to do a Man City - have a wealthy owner come in and throw silly money at the team. The main thrust of this change is in sustainability, so any new owner who invested in a new stadium, for instance, would not fall foul of this as those losses wouldn't count, even though in theory revenue would rise as a result.

Money invested in youth development also is discounted from expenditure (this is how Man City plan to get around it with their new training ground development). The maximum discount is currently £4m, but will rise to £12m and only clubs of £52m (rising to £60m) will be affected.

The sanctions look pretty severe. I'm still looking for the Premier League's "get out of jail" card that UEFA has in its FFP - namely that any club deemed "commercially important to the competition" (read - the G14) will not be subject to sanctions.

The real scam is the "Champions League", which is a cartel designed to keep the rich clubs rich and is dangled as a carrot in front of everyone else to keep them compliant with faint hope.

The sooner this cartel is smashed and we bring back a Euro cup format the better.

I for one would love to see a return to straight knockout European competitions: no seeding, straight draw, one-legged affair. I reckon it'd be immeasurably more exciting than the turgid predictable Champions League group games. Perhaps it may spread the cash out a little further too?

Overall this is good for Everton in the short to medium term but as others have said one quick major bridge to the top has now been stopped. What this also means is that the prospect of owning a Premier League club has got less financially risky and therefore more attractive.

http://mondialblog.tumblr.com/post/42514939301/financial-doping-is-dead-long-live-35m-losses

'What has emerged subsequent to the Premier League announcing details of the deal, are two tiers of losses. The £35m per season allowable loss over three years must be underwritten by club owners. If it is not, it is limited to a £5million per year loss.'

So if BK cannot underwrite the full amount does this mean that EFC will only be allowed to lose £15m over 3 years? If it did we would be in a fire-fighting situation?

Chris #516. I think the ladder has been pulled up for a while now. Although I do agree with your comments on the CL.Look how the hope/carrot of a 4th place finish has got us all in a lather

If there was a place for the champions, for each domestic cup, and a play-off between 2nd through 5th (to 7th perhaps depending on the domestics) competition would thrive.

Would this ever happen? No. But wouldn't it be for the better?

Also how can more than double the votes ever be considered a slender majority?

I would have liked the Premier League adopt similar rules to Germany were non-nationals are not allowed to own clubs, the other thing I would have liked them to look at was ways of encouraging clubs to have more home-grown players in their teams. I think it was recently quoted that English players only accounted for about 23% of Premier League players. Yet when we look at the German and Spanish and Italian leagues there teams are predominantly filled with home-grown talent.

I have a solution (it would never work anyway but here goes, as simplistic as you can get), if you're in debt you're not allowed pay anyone any more than say £15,000 a week in wages, including image rights etc until you become debt free, if you're debt free you're allowed to pay up to a maximum of £25,000 a week in wages. A pity that something like this couldn't be applied across the globe to bring the people's game back to the people (see next point).

Any spare cash goes to academies, ground maintenance and community schemes etc. While we are at it, the price of a ticket should be a maximum £10 for an adult and £5 for children. Special reduced rates for familes going to the game should also be considered / imposed. If you're getting full houses all the time and the clubs have spare cash building up, then use that spare cash to increase capacity / improve facilities if possible.

It was just a few thoughts in this crazy world of football and finance...anyway that's my brief fling with football utopia over and done with, it's back to the real world, we're at Old Trafford this weekend...now that's a reality check!!!

The effect of this is to carve in stone indelibly the advantages that 'rich' clubs have accrued so far while the less fortunate will never have the the benefit of catching up via the sort of investment the 'rich' clubs had to get them to their elevated positions in the first place..

From where I'm sitting I can't see any advantage for Everton in voting for it as it stands.

With this settlement having been reached, perhaps that rumoured takeover at the turn of the year may yet materialise... then again perhaps not.

Kompany doing the safety videos for Etihad for a few million?

Fellaini would make a cracking Fagan in the West End.

We cannot make a loss of more than £5M unless the owner funds it. (I've never used this phrase but "LOL" seems appropriate.)

We cannot increase our wages by more than £4M unless it's from our commercial profits. (Yep, LOL again.)

If we do get bought out then we can spend £35M a year from the new owner, though the wage bill can't really increase.

So, in summary, we're fucked every which way?