Clubs approve P&S rule changes.

[NorthernOwl]

31 minutes ago, Sticky Micky said:

So championship clubs are allowed to lose 13 million a year but clubs relegated from the Premier can lose £35 million in their first year in the championship 

 

Fair play my ar53 

 

 

 

The rules are not there for 'fair play' purposes. They are there to stop clubs going bust. Hence the name change to profit and sustainability.

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, striker said:

Agree, at least level the field and give everyone a fair shot. If parachute payments to remain, at least give everyone the same limit.  It cannot be sustainable to allow relegated teams to have such a financial advantage.

 

I cant believe clubs accept and apparently vote for this poo. 

This leagues full of tin pot clubs with zero  ambition and chairman who cant/won't pay out large sums to compete 

So are quite happy at the current rules 

Edited August 26, 2020 by Sticky Micky

[Guest]

1 minute ago, NorthernOwl said:

 

The rules are not there for 'fair play' purposes. They are there to stop clubs going bust. Hence the name change to profit and sustainability.

Yes that has worked well hasn't it 

[Ever the pessimist]

I’d love to know what metaphorical gun was pointed at the clubs’ heads for them to agree with this.

[NorthernOwl]

7 minutes ago, striker said:

Agree, at least level the field and give everyone a fair shot. If parachute payments to remain, at least give everyone the same limit.  It cannot be sustainable to allow relegated teams to have such a financial advantage.

 

I cant believe clubs accept and apparently vote for this poo. 

 

Most championship clubs dream of establishing themselves in the premier league. Without parachute payments that becomes extremely difficult. 

 

Yes it might make the playing field less even but I can see why clubs would vote for it.

[NorthernOwl]

1 minute ago, Sticky Micky said:

Yes that has worked well hasn't it 

 

Generally speaking it's worked better than having no rules in place. Why do you think clubs keeping voteing for it.

[stocksyuto]

27 minutes ago, mogbad said:

I thought outgoing transfer fees were spread over the term of the players contract.

Yep that's the one haha 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, NorthernOwl said:

 

Generally speaking it's worked better than having no rules in place. Why do you think clubs keeping voteing for it.

Because majority of clubs in this league are receiving failure payments 

 

Do you really think players would be signing for Stoke if they weren't getting failure payments 

[Manwë]

Just now, Sticky Micky said:

Because majority of clubs in this league are receiving failure payments 

 

That's not true though is it?  7 do of varying amounts, 17 don't.

 

[NorthernOwl]

4 minutes ago, Sticky Micky said:

Because majority of clubs in this league are receiving failure payments 

 

Do you really think players would be signing for Stoke if they weren't getting failure payments 

 

No they aren't.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Manwë said:

 

That's not true though is it?  7 do of varying amounts, 17 don't.

 

And how many of that 17 of zero ambition of spending money to get promoted 

[The Night-Owl]

14 minutes ago, The Horse said:

It doesn't beggar belief though when the majority of EFL clubs will never be in a position to fight for promotion to the Premier League.

It's in their best interests to throttle the majority back to somewhere near their level.
Only way out is for Prem League 2.

 

One way or another it looks inevitable that there will be a Premier League 2, with Leagues 1 & 2 and possibly the 5th tier being under the EFL bracket. The current format is a mess, with uneven rules, uneven TV money and parachute payments.

 

Could see more lower League clubs going bust in the near future too in the current financial climate worsened by the pandemic, lack of income from crowds and altered seasons.

 

Now, seemed like the ideal time to implement such changes to the League format and to increase spending limits of non parachute payment clubs. By the time it happens, numerous more clubs will have gone to the wall. Football is broken and the demise begun when the old First Division and European Cup were rebranded. 

[Manwë]

4 minutes ago, Sticky Micky said:

And how many of that 17 of zero ambition of spending money to get promoted 

 

That's not answerable, and it's completely pointless.

 

I believe (happy to be corrected) that two-thirds are needed for a rule change, so 18 clubs.

 

 Do the mental gymnastics if you want, but at the end of the day, Championship clubs have voted for a rule change.  

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 26, 2020 by Manwë
Cos I'm dumb

[steelcityowlsfan]

As mentioned earlier it only needs 13 clubs to force a majority vote. 
 

Tin pot clubs won’t want the likes of Forest, Derby and us being able to spend our way out of the division. 
 

EFL will never stand up to the PL and it’s parachute payments. So they come up with this  cr@p. 
 

The EFL couldn’t run a bath. 

[Harrysgame]

43 minutes ago, S36 OWL said:

Beggars belief, it really does. 

Is it a simple majority to approve? We dont know who is against it.

I can only guess that before the meeting the EFL ask the PL if they are happy with this. 

Why can't the EFL just grow a pair and say our league our rules. I would think the PL don't want to lose the relegation promotion as TV needs the end of season drama.

[wellbeaten-the-owl]

1 hour ago, cowl said:

I'm uncertain what it practically means to have the last two years (of any one 4 year period) averaged and assessed together - presumably, you'd still need to submit your accounts every year?

It means that the 3rd year of assessment will be the average of years 3 & 4.

Eg if a clubs profit / loss (after allowed deductions) were the following:

 

2017/2018: loss £5m

2018/2019: loss £10m

2019/2020: loss £30m

2020/2021: loss £10m

 

Then the loss for the assessment period would be £35m (5 + 10 + ((30+10)/2)

 

So year 3 is the average of 2020 + 2021 results

[Guest The Claw]

1 hour ago, ANDY said:

 

Derby wrote them 

[Drewswfc]

1 hour ago, Sticky Micky said:

So championship clubs are allowed to lose 13 million a year but clubs relegated from the Premier can lose £35 million in their first year in the championship 

 

Fair play my ar53 

 

 

No that's the current rules not the new ones. That article doesn't say owt apart from to be taken over 4 years now

[mark1948]

1 hour ago, Sticky Micky said:

Madness ain't it 

Bournemouth have sold nearly £80 million of talent, have failed payments and a billionaire owner 

 

No way will they lose money but still get the luxery of having a 22 million quid lose advantage of 21 other teams 

 

 

 

Also have hardly any supporters therefore a tiny stadium, low running costs just handouts from everywhere.

[cowl]

17 minutes ago, wellbeaten-the-owl said:

It means that the 3rd year of assessment will be the average of years 3 & 4.

Eg if a clubs profit / loss (after allowed deductions) were the following:

 

2017/2018: loss £5m

2018/2019: loss £10m

2019/2020: loss £30m

2020/2021: loss £10m

 

Then the loss for the assessment period would be £35m (5 + 10 + ((30+10)/2)

 

So year 3 is the average of 2020 + 2021 results

 

Cheers. This much (about the averaging of the last two years) I understood, but I should've been clearer about where my uncertainty was - which was to do with how frequently the accounts have to be submitted.

 

A thought that initially occurred to me was that in any one 4 year period you'd also be allowed a two year period in which accounts need only have been submitted once, but after I thought about it I realized it doesn't affect it at all and that accounts would still have to be submitted every year (I was merely thinking (and hopefully) about ways in which it would've affected our particular case).