Interview with Richard Masters at the Financial Times

No bullets to dodge.

Since the beginning of football the richest clubs at the time have had the most success, and apart from Leicester's once in a hundred year event that is still the case now.

I think if they are going to introduce a meaningful cap, and I don't personally think they work is to cap player salaries. This is the biggest drain on football clubs and agents are demanding more and more for some very average players. Take our club who have spent the last 3 years fighting relegation yet our wage bill is over 90% of our total income. I remember listening to a guy from Deloittes suggesting that any wage bill over 75% is unsustainable.

I would scrap it personally.

It was mentioned over the weekend that a club, and I can't remember which one, might have been Wolves, are spending 96% of their turnover on wages.

I think in most lines of business, the target on salary outlay is more around the 30% mark. Top flight football is the beast that keeps eating itself.

Only three teams were genuine contenders in the PL this year. Only three ever win La Liga. Maybe 4 in Serie A. Ligue 1 is aptly named, because one club dominates. Likewise the Bundesliga.

It is occasionally possible for a minnow to knock off the whales -- Leicester, Leverkusen, Lille -- but it always turns out to be a one-off.

I think it's an unsolvable problem, simply because clubs are individually owned and can navigate around any rules designed to even out the financial imbalances. The idea of clowns like Masters telling Saudi Arabia or the UAE what they can and cannot do strikes me as pretty silly.

In the US sports leagues, teams are franchises, salary caps are imposed, players are unionized and the financial rules are often unbelievably complicated -- but nobody wins 11 titles in a row like Bayern, because they can't just buy up all the best.

And no foreign government entity would ever be allowed to own the Chicago Cubs or Kansas City Chiefs or Phoenix Suns, because they're franchises.

It’s the same whenever you watch a game at premier league level because everyone is pushing to gain every single advantage that they can gain, backed up by the sycophants in the television studio.

Wasn't to do with creating a level playing field nor was it to do with protecting the financial stability of clubs.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2261817/amp/Arsenal-Manchester-United-financial-fair-play-plot-ruin-Premier-League--Martin-Samuel.html

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2329745/Martin-Samuel-meets-Michel-Platini--read-FULL-transcript-interview-UEFA-president.html

Certain clubs have been punished and certain other clubs have got away with it through weases or where the epl messed up the rules (leicester).

My guess this will be re-looked at for Manchester United. My expectation is they're deep in the shit, but the powers aren't going to allow thst to happen for long.

Like us they need a lot of new players, have a lot of players leaving on frees and are left with a lot of players on big wages that no one else wants.

Unless they win the europa league, They're out of Europe next season, and have players like onana, zirkzee, Hojland and anthony where they'll get a fraction of the spend back on.

A few weeks ago The Times carried an article by chief sports journalist Martin Samuel. The title was

‘Only luck stopped the league ruining Everton and Forest’

I can’t share the article as there is a paywall, but the gist is that City’s case now includes a ruling that the Premier League’s financial rules for sponsorship from 2021 to 2024 were ‘Void ab inito’, that means void from the start. The rules must be treated as though they never existed. Everton have a straightforward case to reclaim legal costs, and I would imagine for money lost due to their artificially low placing after the points deduction etc etc.

It concludes that Masters was very lucky to avoid the biggest legal action in football history from Everton and Forest.

I did mail a copy of the article to this website but it seems to have been overLooked unless I’ve missed it!

I don't think the idea of PSR was every to create a level playing field. It came out just as Portsmouth were unravelling after spending ludicrous sums of money, and as City had just been bought. I think the powers that be (Platini the former Juve guy currently on trial still for corruption) led the charge but it was about the status quo not wanting more Chelsea's to come along. Lets not forget Chelsea were far from "Big 6" for most of their history. But suddenly they were and as the EPL was getting stronger UEFA didn't like the usual cartel of Real, Juve etc having serious competition from multiple EPL clubs with rich owners supplementing the usual suspects of Man Utd, Arsenal and RS. That is why this all started. Then obviously the EPL got on board and naturally were only delighted to do so as it protected their own favorites. The only way "a level playing field" came into the equation was in Scotland where the likes of Aberdeen/Hibs naively thought they could step in and become the new Rangers when they went bust. Instead, it became a one team league up until Rangers climbed their way back.

I will hope to read that!

I don't think the sponsorship issue featured in our PSR transgressions, nor indeed Forest's.. so I'm not sure Everton nor Forest could have instigated the biggest legal action in football history.

The fact that neither did?

You might well be right, but if the legal fees were payed by the club, not by Moshiri in person, then surely there is still a case.

I’ve got photos of the report on my phone. Could PM them if that’s possible!

Brendan

The Times report is absolutely certain that the Prem were applying rules that have now been retrospectively declared void and so are vulnerable to any claim against punishments handed out. Maybe Everton are preparing their case before we know what’s happening next.