New Financial Regs

[QPRDave]

[terraloon]

The only reason any club voted the way they did is because of their own agenda. Forget all this old tosh about protecting the wider game and stopping clubs getting into debt for that could have been achieved by not letting clubs to have more debt than say 50% of their annual turnover.
RA over at Chelsea must be having a good old laugh at the likes of Man U, Spurs, Arsenal and Liverpool for the rules as agreed will have been met by Chelsea so in effect he can go on doing what he has been doing.
Rubbish you may say but over the last 3 years the losses after taking away allowables such as money spent on youth development is quite a bit below the sum allowed.
I find all this a disgrace for if TF wanted to inject say £200 million into QPR as long as any debt is either written off or turned into equity then what right has anyone to tell him how to spend his own money?
This is all about the big boys wanting to reatin their place in the current order of things and do you know the sad part is that some such as Spurs, Arsenal and Liverpool have been played by Man U for if the vote had gone their way it would have guarenteed Man U just about total dominace of English football for just about ever.

[nuffieldranger]

when i first started watching football many years ago clubs used to share the gate recipets straight down the middle.
taking this away killed many smaller clubs ie wimbledon etc and although we are back from the pits of the second division through a lot of luck and other influances,
are here by the skin of are teeth so i look at these changes with extreem caution however i do belive that sponsorships arre included as revinue earned so logicly TF continues to have Air Aisia on the shirts and pays what we need !
I may be wrong but we will see.

[dsqpr]

Alot of the clubs that have voted for this i am surprised at....what are we missing here? On the flip side the clubs who voted against this are all on the outside well run and stable...
It is understood that Fulham, West Bromwich Albion, Manchester City, Aston Villa, Swansea City and Southampton all voted against. Chelsea, who had initially been viewed as opponents of financial fair play regulations, voted in favour.
So what do the wonderful Swansea have against fair play rules then?

Oh dear, you've drunk the coolaid. The name "Financial Fair Play" is the biggest lie since "Honest Joe's Garage". Since when is investing in something "unfair"?! Clubs like Manchester United stealing away the best players from all the other teams - that is unfair! And this is just another step towards ensuring they can keep doing this for eternity.

These are the "Eradicate Competitive Balance Regulations". Let's at least give them a name that accurately reflects their intent.

[terraloon]

when i first started watching football many years ago clubs used to share the gate recipets straight down the middle.
taking this away killed many smaller clubs ie wimbledon etc and although we are back from the pits of the second division through a lot of luck and other influances,
are here by the skin of are teeth so i look at these changes with extreem caution however i do belive that sponsorships arre included as revinue earned so logicly TF continues to have Air Aisia on the shirts and pays what we need !
I may be wrong but we will see.

TF wont be allowed to pay more than the commercial market says is value for sponsorship. The claim is all that would happen is he or other owners would pay say £100 million whereas Man Utd who justify the maximum sum currently get £50 million.
Thought your comment about shared gate receipts was interesting and whilst I had know about this my memory was that it was in the deep in distant pass. Found this which I thought was very interesting


The introduction of three points for a win might have been the most obvious change in the early 80s, but it was by no means the most significant. Thatcherite Britain produced in football as surely as in other spheres a rampantly capitalistic system in which the rich got richer. From the end of the first world war, 20% of gate receipts had been given to the away side, while a levy of 4% was taken from all gate receipts and redistributed evenly between the 92 league clubs at the end of the season. The glamorous big city clubs had effectively subsidised the smaller clubs, a principle going back to 1888, when William McGregor's conception of a league had first come into being. Television revenue, similarly, was shared equally between every club.

Sharing of gate receipts ended in 1983. In 1985, the Heathrow agreement redistributed television revenue so 50% went to the top flight, and reduced the levy to 3%. When the Premier League launched in 1992, the levy was replaced with a payment of £3m to lower league clubs, of which only £1m came from the Premier League, the FA making up the rest. The same year, the Champions League came into being, increasing the flood of cash into the top sides.