Kaveh Solhekol explains spending cap that Premier League clubs have voted in principle to introduce
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 апр 2024
- ► Subscribe to Sky Sports News: bit.ly/SkySportsNewsSub
Chief reporter Kaveh Solhekol explains the spending cap that Premier League clubs have voted in principle to introduce from the 2025/26 season.
#SkySportsNews #SkySports #PremierLeague
► For the latest transfer news: qrcode.skysports.com/skysport...
More from Sky Sports on RUclips:
► Sky Sports Retro: bit.ly/SkySportsRetroSub
► Sky Sports: bit.ly/SkySportsSub
► Sky Sports Football: bit.ly/SSFootballSub
► Sky Sports Boxing: bit.ly/SSBoxingSub
► Sky Sports F1: bit.ly/SubscribeSkyF1
► Sky Sports Cricket: bit.ly/SubscribeSkyCricket
► Sky Sports Golf: bit.ly/SubscribeSkySportsGolf
► To enquire about licensing Sky Sports News content, you can find out more here: www.skysports.com/more-sports... 
Спорт
I am sure City will find 115 ways to avoid playing by these rules.
These are nothing but straight facts!
Jealous 😅😅😅
Original, well done
The epl us getting weaker and weaker. Too focused on City
@@Omnipotent-Qwell people are going to keep bringing it up until something is done about it.
It's clear as mud.
Getting rid of agents will have quite a big effect.
What they are not mentioning here is what will happen if they spend more than this new spending cap?
Hardly surprising as that isn’t part of what this decision is. This is only about what sort of model they want to change to. It's now up to the EPL to create a system around this model and bring that back to the clubs for discussion and maybe approval.
Financial penalties. No points deductions anymore.
Speeding ticket
I think they won't be able to do that
right now you can do whatever you want and promise to get revenue that cut your loses in the next years so you stay under the 105 limit
but if this is applied then we will be in a situation where you're not allowed to sign a player or register him because you will go up the cap if you do so , it will be clear as the cap is applied for the same season
I think it will work like the way La Liga's spending cap works, where you are stopped from signing/registering new players if that signing will take you over the limit. This way, they can avoid the issues that happened with Everton with retroactive points deduction and stop the breach before it happens.
does this include the brown envelopes to daddy haaland etc?
Yes it does, City must give more envelopes actually. We need that 5th title in a row
@@susundou1263Lol
@@sourabhrawatcc nooooo his cat too😄😄😄 i didn't know. @itwoznotme how does this piece of useless information make you feel 😄😄😄
I think its good cause transfer fee's are getting silly along with wages
I don't see how this changes that, it is just for the Premier League for this to work it needs to be international otherwise it just means teams outside England can pick off the best Premier League players. The world record transfer fee would still stand.
@@25784lazza I see what your saying but if players want to go abroad for money it shows to the club their at their heart isn't there and I'm a Liverpool fan and if a player don't want to be at the club I'd sell, shouldn't let greedy players hold clubs to ransom
Weakening the EPL. That's why the clubs so weak on the Europe.
@@rakimrobinsonMCFC English clubs won 3 out of the last 5 Champions leagues. Also had 6 out of 10 of the last 5 finals teams. Weak? Do you suffer from short term memory loss?
@nidhoggr_nufc Tottenham, City, liverpool and Chelsea... this is different time. Don't use City that's who ure trying to get rid of. Look at more recent results in Europe. The Epl is not at the same level as the heights of klopp and guardiola. You all chose to weaken the top instead of building the rest. If it wasn't for pride I'd love to see Arsenal go out there as the Epl best rep. in Europe and see how that plays out.
Any owner should be allowed to spend what he/she wants as long as the club stays away from any kind of dept. PSR exists just to maintain the top six status quo.
Wealthy owners pump money into clubs via loans. Usually interest-free loans, but loans nonetheless. Debt.
Even Newcastle, arguably the club with the richest owners, have voted in favour of these rules. Every club, every single one, has voted for the 85% squad cost control. That kills your argument that it's the big 6 pushing this.
This rule literally ONLY harms man city, man United and Chelsea. The top spenders. It benefits literally everyone else that’s why everyone else voted for it
Dumb ass………… learn how to use spell check before getting technical!
@@zac5572 Arsenal and Liverpool would be close to the line depending on the value as it includes wages at they have 360 ish mill wages meaning any cap under 500 mill they would get close to potentially
@@Thetinybudos Liverpool wage bill is 138 million. Compared to arsenal at 170m and city and United at 198m I really don’t think Liverpool are anywhere near close to the line.
Sorry they are arguing that the league is exciting because Man City can outspend everyone? That’s the biggest problem with the excitement in the league. Everyone is complaining about how they win it every year and it’s boring
The epl is weak and will only get weaker. Too focused on trying to stop City
If you want to win its not about money it's about playing better than the others.and entertaining football draws more sponsors.
Teams have always dominated. United in the 90s / 00s, Liverpool in the 70s / 80s, City in the 2010s / 2020s. Changing the spending is going to change nothing, teams will still dominate.
The PL teams will just be much worse off in Europe
If you look at the actual spending of PL clubs since Pep has been at Man City they have not been the biggest spenders. Man U have spent more. Also look at Chelsea this season, by your reasoning they should by running away with the league. You have never been able to buy success. All this cap will do is gradually weaken the PL. The best players will go to Saudi ,for example, for the money.
@@JamieDaGameRX there was never spending rules in any other period. The idea came in with the City take over.
Does this mean people will remove stupid agent costs? If i knew i had 100m to spend in the summer. I wouldn't want an agent taking 20m of my budget.
No, just has to fall within the cost cap limit (I'm assuming)
Just think. All these FFP rules are literally only being put in place because of Newcastles new ownership. The whole league suffers just because the premier league doesn’t want Newcastle competing with Man City. It’s so pathetic. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Man city could make that same case against united, Liverpool, arsenal etc. With FFP
Newcastle fans slowly turning into the new Liverpool fans
The new rule would benefit Newcastle, not do much the "big 6"
@@richiestockton How ironic, along with the likes of utd, lpool, arsenal etc newcastle were one of the clubs squealing the loudest when City got investment. Voting in reams of unworkable rules and regulations sorely to try and stop City in their tracks has stymied clubs like newcastle further down the road. Basically these clubs have only themselves to blame it`s hardly a surprise that utd have voted against these latest rules, quite funny when our neighbours in nearby Salford were the main instigators in this continuing fiasco.
@@richiestockton Ok, similiar newcastle`s owners are much richer.
FFP was bought in to protect teams like Man United, Liverpool and Arsenal. To allow them to spend as much as they want but restrict other teams from spending. It's a way to protect the big clubs and make sure no other clubs replaces them. Glad that City has done what they've done to the 'big clubs'.
Of What ,Cheat-skate?
Manchester was,is an will ALWAYS be RED an no amount of blood money can change that.
Don't feel so BLUE about it ,just drown u sorrows an go out an paint Manchester a lighter RED tonight?
No I'm not a Pu-nited fan
Lol really
Wow. It’s true that in a civilised society even morons are allowed an opinion.
You’re exercising your right sir.
City was already a big club when FFP was introduced
@@WistiPurpleday haha they’re not even a big club now.
When the Pep show comes to a close they’ll be fodder for the rest of the legacy clubs.
Of course Man City voted against it lol 😂😂😂😂😂
So did United
Yeh just like we did with PSR. and you all agree now. CLOWN
Because you have all been buying titles for decades now you might actually have to use your academy’s good time just need rid of corrupt Manchester born refs and we have a good league again.
Dude my united team was part 😂😂😂 stop acting silly mate 😂😂😂
Just so your brain gets some IQ, man utd, arsenal voted against it as well.
I guess the question I wanna know is how much are the top clubs currently exceeding the bottom club x5 by? How much does this spending cap affect them?
On the one hand, it is good to have such rules in place to ensure healthy competition among almost all clubs in the EPL. But on the other hand, it would inhibit the competitiveness of clubs involved in European competition since their continental counterparts aren't subject to the same spending cap.
Also, if it's a fixed multiple of the bottom club's earnings from whatever sources, then clubs with way higher revenue because of gate receipts, commercial deals, sponsorships, investments etc will have no incentive to continue working hard on increasing their revenues and that in turn will materialise into less spending on infrastructure maintenance, fans engagement, community engagement, etc. And if they start to cut back on efforts promoting themselves, would that negatively impact on the marketing value of the EPL? Need to really look at the long-term knock-on effects of a hardline one-size-fits-all cap.
Question is will the obnoxious tv subscriptions reduce?
Unfortunately, no
Rhetorical
As an outside observer, the "competitive in Europe" argument doesn't seem like a good one to use in a year when all the Premier League teams were eliminated from the CL. It was teams from leagues with "spending rules" that beat them.
Basically making their own rules so they don’t suffer themselves. It’s less about how much they can spend but how much punishment they can escape if they go over. Rules are as important as the punishments for breaking them.
Can someone please explain in the simplest way how this works?
The club with the least broadcast revenue , that figure multiplied by 5x is the spending cap
this means that the top clubs can’t spend 5 times more than the bottom clubs. It reduces inequity in the league. Benefits all clubs other than city, Chelsea and United. As they are the top 3 spenders. Everyone else won’t have anything effected
@@3l237I thought it was 4x not 5x as he said £460m(ish)
@@zac5572 they will actually when they start winning , the reason why man city wage bill last season was 420m is bonuses for winning the treble and recording a +700m in revenue
@@zac5572 Arsenal spend over this year, most years they don't but if this had been in effect this year they had not been able to sing one of timber or havertz
Will come in in the year 2547 on the Premier Leagues trajectory. Everyone says its a broken system and clubs cant compete so i know keep screwing the little clubs over and keep it going. How about employing some people who know what they are talking about to get it done yesterday. Dragging their feet as per usual corrupt
does the cap consider off shore accounts held by players from the clubs parent owning club? Cause City have 115 ways to go around the issue
The higher earners (Man City, Man U) are roughly 300-400m over the cap in revenue, next teams are roughly 150-300m over and the a couple of teams are 0-150m over. The cap will only dent the richest clubs.
Why not...
- Introduce a "Disbursement Fund Level" (or whatever the proper name should be)
- Any club(s) spending over and above the Disbursement Fund Level have to pay a proportionate amount (based on some agreed scale/levels) into a disbursement fund which would be used for re-investment into lower level clubs (or other such causes to help football as a whole benefit)
Might discourage(?) too much overspend but still allow clubs to compete with overseas offers for top players, plus benefit struggling clubs and football causes.
Where teams are allowed to pay x for a player but can pay in instalments, I don't see it having too much of an impact. If it continues, how it is it will end up just like the other leagues with one winner and the rest settling to play for European football.
The one time I absolutely respect Kaveh speaking at 0.5 speed
With half of the sides in the Premier League now been owned by Americans and with all American sports except baseball having a salary cap was it not inevitable that those owners would want to have a salary cap? Didn't the talk of a European Super League include the provision of a salary cap?
Now if they could just have an agent fee cap or insist the players rather than the clubs pay their agents more money might stay in football.
I think this is good. To keep it balanced and fair
Man city are able to inflate their revenue by signing contracts with companies connected to their owners
A nice little myth perpetrated by the red media, Manchester City have the biggest turnover because they are successful. Their prize money alone in the last 12 months is £355m they also made £80m on transfers.
City don't have to do anything, they are already earning over 800 million, they will become first cmub to hit billion mark
😂cry me river
Prove it
@@nitinpatel1039barca did that the year before covid
If only there was some model for how to handle situations in which some members of an economy have far too much money in relation to their "peers".
But does this spending cap really affect anyone if the PSR 70%/85% revenue limits are simultaneously in place?
My guess is that they will eventually look to scrap PSR. It's the only reason Newcastle would vote for it. It's a medium solution that satisfies most parties, the clubs like Newcastle that complain about not being able to grow under PSR, and the bigger clubs that are afraid of competition.
Aresenal would have been over the spending this year. So they would not have been allowed to buy timber or havertz.
@@ps50433 But aren't we still bound by UEFA's rules, if we want to play in Europe? I haven't heard anyone claiming EUFA's changing their rules.
Loads easier for clubs to navigate FFP 👍🏽
The actual reality of club spending in the PL is not what most of you think. The real figures are out there publishing by the PL itself and Man City are not and have never been the biggest spenders in the PL. So before you open your mouths get the facts right.
They love jingoism over facts.
The only way that this even begins to make any real tangible changes is if by spending over that seasons "salary cap" points are deducted from the teams that overspend & its done on a graduated level to inhibit excessive overspending. City will just do the same thing they did w their appeals to the CAS &spend millions on lawyers to get their judges on the benches or boards to "decide" IF they broke the rule & if so what the punishment or sentence would be. Locks are only useful at keeping honest men from stealing. Thieves just go around the locks.
Manchester City haven`t overspent in years they`ve been earning more than lpool for example since 2013.
Chelsea has already put like 30 wonderkids on fheir books.
Now they're like "I couldn't care less bro". 😂
Wait isn’t this a bad thing since smaller clubs don’t even generate enough money to buy players without going over the cap?
If they don't generate enough money, how will they go over the cap?
@@scotttocsBy using their owners money you genius. Isn't that what City gets accused for?
I forgot. Where are the most exciting league clubs in Europe atm?
get rid of the agents would be a good start
No.
So you are allowing clubs 1 year to have contingency plans to counter this proposition👏
This will affect teams when they play in Europe
Nah.
Am i right in saying this is per year? where teams are falling foul of ffp at 150M per year this increases it to over 400M? if correct surely the majority of teams will be loads better off.
It is on everything player and coach related. So Arsenal spend 212 mil a year in wages. They would have been over this year and not been able to sing timber or havertz.
Comrades, all clubs should share money, players, stadiums and fans equally 🇰🇵🇨🇳
That helps clubs. Not fans, not agents and not players. It increases the amount you can spend on transfer fees. Just means clubs get richer and players get poorer
Yep this is literally what it means. More money stay with the owner and less goes to players.
I hope this stops the inflation of player value that English football has, and doesn't just worsen the quality of the clubs compared to Europe
It will for sure be rough on the top clubs. Just to compare Real have a spending limit of 850 a year. So an english club is around half of real now.
Man City, Man Utd, & Villa voted against. Chelsea abstained. So 16 clubs voted for the new rules.
No suprise that the
Kings of Corruption an the 2biggest spenders abstained/said no ( not sure about Villa).
Darren Farley, if you're listening, you should do impressions of this guy. He sounds like he takes himself way too seriously
Surly City won’t be able to spend a lot as there wage bills will be higher than a lot of clubs
Surely
why setting a cap that is a set number for all teams whereas it's clearly should be only relevant to each team itself also why limiting it to broadcast while clubs are busting their as**s off to get more popular and raise revenue from shops,tickets,ads,sponsors..
etc
Keep creating new rules,but not enforcing the old ones. When city cases go to court?
Chelsea and Man City will use their creativity in dealing with this matter. Others club should learn from them
2 minutes in and I’m already lost and confused
Each team Put up front £1Billion as deposit to ensure their teams won't go bankrupt. Then each teams can spend whatever they want. Y complicate things?
Where's Luton and Bournemouth etc going to get that sort code of money???
@@martynrollinson sell it off to billionaire owners
Newcastle fan - a bit confused as to why our owners seem to have voted for this? Surely this makes playing catch up harder? 🤷♂️
Presumably it makes it harder for other clubs to move away from us than it does for us to catch them up.
@@georgemorley1029 yeah, apparently it means we can actually spend more now too, but surely that’s only a short term benefit? Unless they’re banking on the rules being changed again in a few years I guess 🤷♂️
5x more than the revenue of the bottom club is already too much, no? I know it's way more than this atm but if we thinking about fixing the problem this is a start but needs to lower with time.
Why do you want the owners to take houndreds of millions out of the clubs each year? When this goes into effect the United owners will have 3/400 mil to just pocket that is taken out of football.
@@WistiPurpleday I don't care about how much the owners make they do whatever they want with their money. I care about the competitiveness of the league. I want to see the worst teams have a chance of winning the league.
@@JoaoMassot I kinda think its disgusting that the owners pocket the money that the players earn. As of now the United owners will just put 300+ mil a year in their own pockets instead of investing it back into the scene. But hey you do you, let the rich suck the money out of football.
If Kaveh Sohlekol was to explain anything to a nine months baby, the baby will someway somehow understand whatever he's saying.
He is that good!
Respect +/-🫡
No what we are asking is
Which clubs at the minute are over the cap
What loopholes are in place for Man city to avoid these
Lol, You are too focused on City when Chelsea can spend the amounts they do? Lol, this is just salt.
Manchester City make money while the likes of chelsea had a £2bn black hole under Abramovitch and utd are currently £1bn in debt and nobody bats an eyelid.
cry more .
Kaveh looks like he’s gone full Slim Shady
First things clubs will do is find a way to circumvent this rule
Yup. And people will again cry because City is already not just one but few steps ahead.
City has like 13 sister clubs. 3 or 4 in Europe only. They will just buy players and loan them to City on partial wages. Problem solved. With a gargantuan team already in place full of young talents, City needs like 1 or 2 players to refresh their squad every year.
Hate it or love it, we will have to agree that City definitely has brains.
This should have been done in 2004!
Coincidental how these rules coming in just bf Cheaty get charged...
Hopefully they get trialed on old rules like Everton an Forest have been
They can't charge City in the same way. The accusations are totally different. Everton and Nottingham got charged for reckless spending. City is already clear of that. City is charged with inflated sources of earning. Nobody educated enough in this entire world would say both are the same things.
BTW I can bet on it that City will be proven 100% innocent and cleared of all the charges once again. Money or not, it was really stupid of PL to put in 115 charges. No one can handle that much of jargon when the onus is on you to prove someone guilty. If it was 3-5 solid charges, there was a chance. With 115, they will get it complicated within themselves.
Other 2 charged under old system when the dody dealings actually took place, Sky Spts said it; Richy need same treatment of being charged under the 3-9yr period of when badness took place not under new rules being introduced nx Yr.
Richy won't ever b truly guilty/ innocent as no1 will know the REAL dodgy dealings as Richy will probably provide dubious paperwork an if no1 has ever seen the Original paperwork they'll never know if the evidence provided has been 'doctored' or whether relevant material proving their guilt, has been conveniently erased.
Gregbeales nufc can outspend Man City all day long they could spend more than the 19 clubs combined if they could & wanted but won’t because it’s not smart business
Game over for the small clubs 😢
How's this game over for them? It's in favour of the smaller clubs
@@azryalz4721No it isnt. thats how they fool people. the same thing happened in f1. all the cap did was make it impossible for small teams to catch up because now nobody can spend money. A cap is going to destroy clubs like Newcastle who have money to spend but arent at the top of the league right now. Not to mention, a cap weakens the entire league overall compared to other leagues.
@@MattMajcan that makes no sense. Formula 1 is literally closer from top to bottom than it has ever been.
Capping the top teams means there’s a smaller gap in spend between the top and the bottom, meaning less of a difference in financial capabilities, making it closer and more reliant as to who’s club is working the most efficient, whilst still allowing investment to be made.
@@MattMajcan Based on the numbers right now, the anchoring "allowed spend" on wages+transfer fees will be somewhere between £500m and £600m. Newcastle spent about £260m last year.
But, if Newcastle want to compete in European competitions, which they do, they need to meet the UEFA 70% squad cost control ratio.
These regs don't put the PL at a disadvantage...EVERY club that wants to play in Europe has to play by the same financial rules. EVERY league in europe also has their own rules.
@@azryalz4721on the one hand yeah you could say the field is closer than ever but on the other hand you could say that red bull wins every race by half a lap or more and they seem to be getting more dominant instead of less dominant and nobody can catch up because nobody can spend more than them
Couldn't have picked a less busy road?
£103 M x 5! £512M a year! How will clubs survive! 😂😂😂
This is fantastic news for the PL.. clearly what Chelsea has done has to be stopped in its tracks or it's all going to go down the drain..
Better idea .. limit the amount Chelsea and Man City can spend on shady lawyers and accountants.
Only clubs like Manchester City would be complaining about not being able to spend more than £440 million.
Tells you all you need to know about how they just want to buy championships and not earn it.
Nobody seems to realize this will make The premier league unable to compete at some point. Imagine if you made a bilion in revenue and the powers that be makes sure you can only spend 450mil out of that every year that in turn transforms the Premier league into a big business because all of that profit would have to go somewhere and into some pockets only clubs with an already large wage structure will be against this or maybe I'm not getting the whole point of it. But also in turn this means clubs are not able to offer competitive wages to players in the long run and the players will have to go chase the money elsewhere and in due time the decline if this league has been assured because this nay be more restrictive than the spanish version by the looks of it.
Surely the league will not be "The most exciting" if the same club wins the league.
Easy solution. Give the smaller clubs with less revenue the greater share of the TV rights. That would even it out a bit.
It would a little bit, but the English model is already like almost equal compared to like spain where top 4 gets 85% of the pay. I think this year there was a 28% difference between top and bottom pay from tv rights.
A great win Newcastle
this new rule, just makes the clubs richer. now they have an excuse not to spend more on wages etc. because theres a cap.. what about an earning cap?? and having to pay whats more to charity
If this happened in leagues through europe leagues their top 3 would only be able to spend 10million . Our bottom clubs still generate over 100million . And guess what europe its coming your way
Why not all be able to spend whatever they like, hows about that, if you've got it and can afford it then crack on, go mental! There are clubs in the EPL that will never rise to the levels of the top clubs but thats nobody elses fault only their own, they will never grow the fan base or revenue so just uncap it and spend it if you can afford it
Wonder how long it takes before it goes wrong AGAIN and clubs change their mind. Thought EPL clubs didn't want a SUPER LEAGUE.
The only man who can talk and explains nothing and never gets the point across, how he gets air time is ridiculous
Puts both Man Utd and Man City at good disadvantages. Last year’s figures, respectively they would be minus £240 million and minus £260 million in wages and agent fees per season right off the bat.
Excellent, what a laugh 😊. It’s alright though, Antony is worth every penny.
Only English football fans would think that they're at a "good disadvantage" when they can't continue to outspend every single other football club in the world w maybe 1 exception. Whatever will they do? How will either Manchester team even be able to field a starting XI with this pittance of an amount to spend on a team? Womp womp. Yap yap.
Why? MUFC spend around £455m on wages + transfer fees + agents fees - profit on player sales. The anchoring allowed spend will be somewhere between £500m and £600m depending on what multiple they decide on.
Well I'm not sure now. Maybe a super league, where you see the very best teams and players from around the world competing is better than watching a league where teams are choked by spending caps and no doubt future controls on transfer spending and earnings.
Pity, England did have the best league in the world but someone has clearly bought the organising bodies so it can skim off the more ambitious clubs.
When you think of the talent the Prem. clubs are going to lose, well I think the 14 that voted for these changes have just forced out the top clubs to help themselves. Very short term.
Fair enough, but it's Championship level football for the Prem. now, and a huge loss of revenue incoming. Well done if that's really the way you want to get a chance of winning things. Go ahead destroy the Premier League. Lower the standards and the quality for a level playing field.
Think I'm prepared to switch to watching top quality football with the best players and teams. Loved the old league system, personally I think it's just been killed off with these changes.
Bye. 💙
Good
Exactly bro. Now premier League clubs will get weaker in Europe
@@alphamale3692 even when we spent money we barely win in Europe
This only affects chelsea, man utd and man city.
It would have affected Arsenal this year.
Use the NFL system. Every team is stacked for cash and they have been doing it for decades.
This will put EPL behind other leagues. Real will attract the best players like haaland and EPL will dwindle. Just let clubs spend what they like as long as they dont go into debt
🤣
We need to rebuild next summer and get a new set piece coach
If the current rules are not fit for purpose is it fair to continue to punish clubs who currently fail to comply? Seems unfair to me, Forrest could get relegated as a consequence and that can’t be right. Ps not a Forrest supporter!
You should be an independent news agency and the portrayal that you give is far from this so can you give an honest opinion on corruption claims
to litlle to late with this one loop holes have been around for years and clubs like chelsea and man city have taken full advantage
What's wrong with taking advantage of loopholes?
@@rakimrobinsonMCFC absolutely nothing but it’s to late to try and fix it atm it’s unfixable
Football has arrived to where it is, becoz of money,not the other way round
So the top clubs will find it harder to compete in Europe.
Well everybody its official
Is this spending cap per season or over 3 seasons ?
It’s per season. It’s the American-zation of the EPL, so looking at how American leagues do it…. NFL players can get a signing bonus which is amortized over the length of the contract (QB gets $100M signing bonus for a 5 year old contract so it’s spread $20M per year). NFL front offices try to manipulate the “cap” usually by deferring into the future (as the cap always rises each year). MLS does the same with transfer fees so that’s what the EPL will do. Sign a player for 100M and you sign him to a 5 year contract…the transfer fee is 20M per year against the cap.
Per season I'm guessing
@@fsshue8657FFP pretty much already works that way mate, that’s how Chelsea have been able to spend the amounts they’ve been spending.. Giving players 8-10 year contracts.
@@Primitive01 Yup. They will have to figure out limits to prevent what Chelsea was doing. It’s okay to give 10 year contracts, but shouldn’t allow clubs to spread the transfer fee over 10 years. NFL teams do crazy stuff to add years, like “voidable years”. Anyway it’s a better direction as you establish a ceiling, but there will always be loopholes on the “revenue limit” side (85 or 70%) as we saw with Man City booking sponsorship revenue from another state owned company in Eithad Airlines.
@@fsshue8657 The "Chelsea loophole" has been closed. You can put players on whatever length of contracts you like, but you can now only amortise the fee over a maximum of 5 years.
Should of been done 25 years ago
What about Man City?
Yeah, fantastic arn`t they.
Champions of England
U spelta word wrong..
It should read Cheats of Europe
Great news for the Saudi league
Next week there'll be another vote on something else…
Does this mean man city will be let off?
Probably
I am sure Chelsea will find a loophole
another example of the PL eating itself...
Kaveh solhekol a.k.a Pepper Brooks if you know you know😊
Premier league should have a salary cap, with an exception of a few players on the big teams what person is really worth 100k a week if Antony makes that doing what he does at Man U😂😂😂😂 what a joke
This is a good idea borrowed from American Sports finance culture; the consequence (long term) is on the big clubs, transfer market & player retention.
The big clubs now need to be creative in finding a way to maintain outspending within a system that forces equity.
Ha Citeh and Man U throw their toys out the pram…with Villa? But oh look 👀 it would take 6 to vote against😂PSR oot asap🎉🎉🎉🎉
Chelsea is preparing to sell all the Motels on the highway to balance the books.
We need Super League.