Premier League clubs narrowly agree to monetary limits

, 8 February, 27comments  |  Jump to most recent
But big investment would still be possible

The Premier League's 20 clubs have voted by a slender majority to new spending controls designed to curb the financial excesses that have gripped the domestic game in recent years. 13 chairmen voted in favour of the new measures, the most significant of which include limits on wage bills and a ceiling on losses that each club can make, with six not in favour and one abstention.

Under the new controls that would go into effect next season, clubs with total wage bills of £52m or more would cap salary increases at £4m per season for the following three years. In addition, the total losses any single club can make would be resticted to £105m over three years, which, if breached, would incur severe penalties, with Premier League chief executive Richard Scudamore indicating the League will be pushing for points deductions.

"As all things in our rulebook you will subject to a disciplinary commission," Scudamore told reporters."The clubs understand that if people break the £105m we will looking for the top-end ultimate sanction range — points deduction."

He explained that the rationale behind the new controls was to prevent the kind of cash-fueled, "overnight success" enjoyed by Chelsea and Manchester City in recent years under billionnaire ownership.

Article continues below video content


"The balance we have tried to strike is that a new owner can still invest a decent amount of money to improve their club but they are not going to be throwing hundreds and hundreds of millions in a very short period of time."

"I think at £105million you can still build a very decent club with substantial owner funding but you have to do it over time, you can't do it in a season."  

Though the spending controls passed with the required two-thirds majority, they did so narrowly, with six clubs — believed to be Aston Villa, Fulham, Manchester City, Swansea, Southampton and West Bromwich Albion rejecting the proposals and Reading abstaining.

The wage ceiling would start at £52million for the 2013-14 season and rise to £56million the following year and £60million in 2015-16 but only seven of the current Premier League clubs would be under that ceiling at the moment.

Quotes or other material sourced from BBC Sport



Reader Comments (27)

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


Pat Finegan
1 Posted 08/02/2013 at 06:33:23
Could be good. Could also push players or investors away from coming to england. There are risks invokved but I'd say it's worth a go.
Chris James
2 Posted 08/02/2013 at 06:58:54
On one hand this will play into the hands of the established powers (i.e. with biggest income/wage bills currently) and could even force a short-term surge in player payments for some to give them more flexibility going forward.

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.

Thomas Lennon
3 Posted 08/02/2013 at 08:32:08
On the face of it in one way this is good news for Everton on the grounds that the majority of the new money coming in this summer cannot be spent on wages so existing players (or managers) cannot make further demands. Could this mean we will be paying down debt or making other investments in the business side?
Matt Traynor
4 Posted 08/02/2013 at 08:50:01
The six clubs to vote against were Fulham, West Brom, Southampton, Swansea, Aston Villa and unsurprisingly Manchester City. Reading were the abstention.

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.

Matt Traynor
5 Posted 08/02/2013 at 08:58:17
Apologies for duplicating some of the original posting - reading two simultaneous, and radically different, threads at once!
David Harrison
6 Posted 08/02/2013 at 09:02:36
All well and good but my understanding is that money raised from merchandising, matchday income etc. can still be spent on players. This could see us slide further down the pecking order considering our woeful marketing and antique ground
Chris Matheson
7 Posted 08/02/2013 at 09:04:32
This could well be a decent, if modest, start, although I worry it may cement the financial dominance of existing rich clubs who would effectively be pulling up the ladder behing them.

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.

Nick Oakley
8 Posted 08/02/2013 at 09:19:16
Hear, hear, Chris #516.

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?

Thomas Lennon
9 Posted 08/02/2013 at 09:27:53
David #515 - true BUT this give the club all the incentive in the world to do something about that, and gives them significant capital to do it with and the security for the forseeable future to spend it knowing there are strict limits on future spending on our biggest outgoings - wages.

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.

Phil Walling
10 Posted 08/02/2013 at 09:36:05
There`s no reason why the clubs won`t fiddle their way round these regulations just as they have all the others since the game began.Let`s face it,players,managers,officials-and now agents-`have been at it` (allegedly)for ever.Only the poor speccies end up paying the price-one way or another!
Patrick Murphy
11 Posted 08/02/2013 at 09:41:01
But according to the following link.

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?

David Harrison
12 Posted 08/02/2013 at 09:40:42
Fair comments Thomas. perhaps we all need a little more time to digest the implications for EFC

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

Nick Entwistle
13 Posted 08/02/2013 at 09:51:01
It would also be beneficial to reallocate the CL places which dominate how and where the competition for the title comes from. Its terrible that the domestic championship is dictated by a European competition.

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?

James Martin
14 Posted 08/02/2013 at 10:43:48
You wouldn't want that Nick, any form of play off the RS would invariably win every time despite probably finishing at the bottom of the qualification spots. We'd finish ahead of them only to choke in the big occassion.
Kevin Day
15 Posted 08/02/2013 at 11:08:23
I think there is a big big point being missed here, what is there to stop the likes of roman or sheikh just buying players and not putting it through the club/ business? What's to stop players setting up little businesses for part of their wages being paid in to, this is as water tight as my dead grans old tights.
Nick Entwistle
16 Posted 08/02/2013 at 11:19:31
Were there not cases in Australian sport where a player's partner worked in the club gift shop for a day and earned $100,000?
Chris Matheson
17 Posted 08/02/2013 at 11:36:10
Kevin at 539 - Would such a scenario contravene rules on 3rd party ownership?
Tony J Williams
18 Posted 08/02/2013 at 12:10:00
Too little too late.

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

Brian Harrison
19 Posted 08/02/2013 at 12:47:29
I guess we will only see the ramifications after these new rules have been in place for a couple of seasons. There is no doubt that some sort of cap was vital and hopefully this will make clubs work within there means although I am not convinced that they will not already be looking for loopholes in these new laws.

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.

Declan Brown
20 Posted 08/02/2013 at 14:48:10
With all the insane amounts of money in football now it is a scandal that clubs are in debt.

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!!!

Roman Sidey
21 Posted 08/02/2013 at 14:54:09
Nick Entwistle, it wasn't the club gift shop and it wasn't $100 000. It was the club laundary and it was for an inner-city mansion paid in full. It's incestiuous in Aus. There was the case where Eddie McGuire (president of Collingwood, the biggest sporting club in Australia) taking skipper Nathan Buckley to his jeweller to sort out Bucks' engagement ring for his missus, and we're pretty sure he didn't have to pay a cent.
Dave Roberts
22 Posted 08/02/2013 at 15:18:34
This is merely protecting the status quo while paying lip-service to the fact that football finance is out of control.....in other words, the clubs who have already benefited from sugar daddies or similar keep those advantages while nobody else gets a chance to catch up should they be so fortunate to have the opportunity. The principle is fine and one I agree with but it should have been predicated by a regulated return to a level playing field and for the new arrangements to proceed from there.

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.

Colin Glassar
23 Posted 08/02/2013 at 16:15:05
So does this mean that any faint hope we ever had of a takeover has gone up in smoke? I hope not.
Kevin Day
24 Posted 08/02/2013 at 18:00:28
To be honest Chris I am not sure, but I would guess if for example roman bought messi for X amount out if his own pocket then it is roman himself who owns the player not Chelsea. But like I said I'm not sure.
Patrick Murphy
25 Posted 08/02/2013 at 18:45:09
It looks to me, without any further information, that – following this agreement – Everton, owned by BIll Kenwright, is in a weaker position than most, due to his lack of assets and money, but I'm no accountant.

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

Ernie Baywood
26 Posted 08/02/2013 at 23:02:15
Roman, you also had the players in Aus "working" part time for Visy, Costa etc... I wonder if the same could happen here to supplement player income?

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

Fellaini would make a cracking Fagan in the West End.

Ernie Baywood
27 Posted 09/02/2013 at 01:18:35
Reading these rules again I see the following for Everton:

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?


Add Your Comments

In order to post a comment, you need to be logged in as a registered user of the site.

» Log in now

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.


About these ads

© ToffeeWeb