They’ll be judged on the rules in place at the time the offences occured.
3 Likes
Should an owner be able to invest in a club’s wages/transfer budget (knowing they will lose money)
- Owners should be able to lose what they like as long as the club itself is left in a healthy position
- Losses allowed up to £X/X% per year/3 years
- Clubs should run organically, fines for any losses over X period
0 voters
No way can I vote for the 1st option after witnessing how Chelsea and City the changed the game. Not just in the market but the sport in general. Don’t know what ‘healthy’ means either with the amount of cooking the books I suspect is going on.
1 Like
I’m a bit torn myself, I like the idea of the organic option, but arguably this reduces competition as the smaller clubs would never be able to compete with the big boys.
Although I think investment in infrastructure isn’t counted for this (under current FFP rules at least).
And it should help the wage/transfer market settle down which would have a knock-on positive effect on the smaller clubs
This angle is understandable but as we can see with City it doesn’t really create more competition, in fact City’s domination has reduced it. Arsenal and Liverpool (Incidentally, the traditional big clubs) had to put together several years of a well-run operation to try to compete with City.
City beat Watford 6-0 in a Cup Final and many supporters just thought the match was a joke and pointless for how uncompetitive it was.
1 Like
Having massive investors at small clubs means it’s about the owner rather than the club or supporters.
We’ve seen with Chelsea and Man City that the inflated price of players makes it impossible for other properly run clubs to compete with them.
As much as I can’t stand spurs or Man U, at least they spend what they earn but Chelsea and Man City buying success for their entitled plastic supporters is too much.
If FFP changer the rules and don’t give points deductions or transfer bans, then they must have got massive backhanders.
It’s pointless fining Man City or Chelsea and if they do, where does that money go?
The clubs set the rules by a 2/3 vote. No need for back handers, its all about self interest.
https://x.com/martynziegler/status/1795510305616744700
I wonder if that Newcastle can afford to keep Bruno.
Edit: Scratch that, forgot the lost the European spot. Not that it would matter as you barely make any money out of ECL.
Exactly. You can’t hurt City or Chelsea financially. Massive point reductions are the only way, or booting them down to a lower division.
1 Like
Alex Crook saying this is expected to be greenlit today.
Not sure if that means Villa have just about escaped having to make sales before July or the changes will count from July onwards.
boost English clubs’ competitiveness in Europe.
How much more an advantage do they need?
2 Likes
https://x.com/JPercyTelegraph/status/1798717285575884871
Hooooold. Douglas Luiz is a bianconeri. 
2 Likes
Abstention in this context meaning “we’d like the increase, but there’s no way in hell it’s passing so we’ll save face by not voting”.
Can’t enforce the rules on one and change them for the other.
Fuck em. Enjoy that 2-0 win you bergundy cunts.
1 Like
I believe their pitch specifically was formed in a way so that they specifically do not fail PSR.
Was it just 30m increase? What even the point of that.
What’s stopping them from increasing them by 10m every year?
1 Like
https://x.com/David_Ornstein/status/1798839486144733666
Chelsea avoided breaching the PSR limit by selling the two hotels and car parks at Stamford Bridge to a sister company for £76.5million (now $98m). This was enough to turn a £166.4million loss in 2022-23 into a £89.9million deficit for the club.
Respect. 
Fine with it. Rules shouldn’t be implemented and executed retrospectively.
PL should have closed the loopholes like multi year contract and selling assets to sister companies long before it got misused.
It was their complacency that should be criticised and not Chelsea’s shrewd eyes to find the loophole.
That wasn’t the plan. The idea was to restrict it going forward.