If Chelsea Hadn’t Changed Their Vote, the EPL Financial Measures Would Have Failed: The Daily EPL

Yesterday, the Premier League clubs passed a landmark decision to enact new financial measures to curb the spending and increase in player salaries. Interestingly, the measure only passed when Chelsea decided to change its position from opposition to support. If Chelsea had stuck to its guns, the measure would not have passed.

Beginning with the 2013-14 season, Premier League clubs will be limited to £105m losses over three seasons. If the rule was currently in place, the clubs who would have points deducted are Chelsea, Liverpool, Manchester City, Aston Villa.

Here are today’s Premier League news headlines:

The Daily EPL is your morning guide to the latest Premier League news headlines, so you don’t have to spend an hour or more scanning the Internet. We do all the work for you. Read The Daily EPL on EPL Talk every morning to stay on top of all the news that matters.

33 thoughts on “If Chelsea Hadn’t Changed Their Vote, the EPL Financial Measures Would Have Failed: The Daily EPL”

  1. Liverpool really wouldn’t be in the list. For all their problems recently, the wages and spending are now under control. It’s unfair to lump them in with City and Chelsea’s wild spending when neither of those clubs have the global non-match-day income to match LFC.

    1. Liverpool have the most expensive squad and highest wages outside of Utd, City and Chelsea. The difference is Liverpool are in 7th place definitely showing their spending not only to be wild but bad investment as well.

      By the way both Chelsea and City earn a lot more than Liverpool with this imagined unmatched ‘global non match day income’

  2. All you need to know about FFP is that they are almost universally celebrating the final result on the Bluemoon forums. Where, as I can attest, people have been nattering over this issue for easily the entire period during which it has been under discussion. (Previously, this was largely seen by my fellow Citizens as a shady bit of business orchestrated by MUFC, Arsenal, and Liverpool to reinstitute the pre-Abramovich status quo).

    Looks instead like it will institute the status quo circa now, adding Chavski, City, and maybe the Spurs to the list of clubs with any theoretical chance ever to be League champions. If you look at Deloitte’s recent revenue numbers and the structure of what has apparently been agreed on the conclusion would appear to be that no more “Blankcheck Rovers 1994” scenarios will ever be possible.

    I kind of think that is too bad. Not saying you want to be the NFL, where everyone more or less will cycle through the Super Bowl in a decade. But I think the game overall would be even better if you had at least the prospect in play as a Norwich (or whoever) supporter that you could be following a club one year with gold badges on the sleeves.

    1. Just for the record, Marc, only 13 out of the NFL’s 32 teams have been in the Super Bowl in the last ten years, with only 7 different champions.

      Better chances than the Prem for sure, but not exactly a wide open door. :-)

        1. The EPL/NFL comparison is not apples to apples since the NFL uses playoffs. Playoffs will also create more diversity of champions b/c the small sample size of games and opportunity for one-off upsets. Being the best team for 38 games is very different from being the best team for 3/4 games.

        2. Well, yes and no. In the last 10 years the Prem has had 4 different champions. That is approximately the same percentage of teams as in the NFL (7 out of 32).

          I think Andy’s point below is actually more germane. What would the results of the Prem have been if they had some kind of playoff to determine the “Champion”? To match the NFL that would mean the top 8 teams would be involved in a series of one off games to determine the winner.

          God forbid. :-)

          1. Parity in the NFL is a myth. For example, this past SB was the first since 2002 without Brady, Manning, or Roethlisberger.

  3. While the FFP may help in trying to make it a relatively level playing field in the EPL, it might not help EPL teams in European competitions because not all European leagues have a FFP policy.

    One cannot compare any of the American sports with soccer because here there are playoff systems and teams are not competing for athletes worldwide. Soccer teams have to compete worldwide for talent.

    1. Could you please explain how FFP is trying to make football a ‘relatively level playing field??

      Surely it is clearly about keeping the top clubs top?

  4. I’m not sure how City legitimately benefits from this, Marc L. Even if you don’t buy another player for three years, you need to pay inflated wages for your entire squad as well as a handful of Championship sides who took your castoffs on loan. You have somewhere in the neighbourhood of £9m paid out for Roque Santa Cruz and Wayne Bridge alone. Your wage bill alone is just short of 90% of total turnover. That doesn’t include transfer fees.

    None of these measures matter as long as any club can claim they received £100M sponsorship deals from another branch of the same owner. For any form of FFP to hold up, you need universal accounting practises and fully disclosed bid processes. Otherwise, it’s just a matter of whether or not your accountants are any good at cooking the books.


    1. Manchester City (and the other top 5-6 clubs) in the Premier League will gain an advantage from this decision because they can garner massive sponsorships from global brands, to help generate massive amounts of revenue that the other clubs in the Premier League cannot match.

      The Gaffer

      1. I suppose that is why this is called “Fair Finance” and not “Fair Play”. Linking the “improvement” to solvency while not a bad idea, hardly does anything to increase parity closer to the top of the league.

      2. But that’s always been the case, Gaffer. Big clubs have more and further-reaching financial bases than small clubs. FFP doesn’t change that for Man City, and they’re still locked in to the exorbitant long term contracts they’ve signed with players.

        Like I said, the biggest problem isn’t the big contracts, it’s the big BS contracts. When I hear that CIty have sold naming rights to another Mansour subsidiary for (insert outrageously over the top sum here), I always want to know, what was the second best bid because you know it either (a) doesn’t exist) or is about the same amount Aston Villa gets offered for anything, which is a fraction of what “big clubs” get.

      3. From what I have read, they will not allow shady 400 million pound stadium deals from the owners family to be counted. They will look at the club and see what the % of genuine income will be.

  5. I don’t get it. Why is a team allowed to be in the red at all?

    And it is a little unfair for Liverpool to be mentioned seeing that the owners got Liverpool out of the depths that Hicks / Gillette put them under.

    1. Why can’t a rich owner lose money on a vanity project? If a rich guy wants to give money to a team, why should anyone be allowed to stop them?

      It’s one thing to keep teams from going into debt to banks and the government. But it’s another thing to tell someone how they can spend their money.

      1. Well, it’s done in American sports all the time. All the leagues have some sort of salary cap/luxury tax mechanism in a effort to make sure that a super wealthy owner can’t just buy championship after championship. I doubt many of us would want to see that changed.

        1. American salary caps are completely different. They limit all the teams to the same level of spending regardless of the revenues. The Dallas Cowboys can’t spend more than the Jacksonville Jaguars even though the Cowboys probably generate 3x the revenue.

          What this rule does is tell the smaller teams that they can’t spend as much money as the big teams, even if their owner has the means to do it.

          1. I was simply responding to your question (“If a rich guy wants to give money to a team, why should anyone be allowed to stop them?”) not the ramifications of the new rules, which is another matter.

          2. But the American Salary Cap rules don’t stop a crazy wealthy owner from giving tons of money to the team. He just can’t spend more on salary.

            He can lose all the money he wants building a giant stadium, hiring more and better scouts, hiring better and larger coaching staffs, building the best locker room and training facilities, providing the best possible medical care and nutrition to the players, etc. No American sport tells owners they can’t lose money on a vanity project.

          3. Give me one instance in American sports where this has happened. The key is always money spent on players. Btw, MLB has no salary cap.

  6. It’s a smokescreen to say clubs are trying to help each other with these rules.

    This is about clubs wanting their TV money to stay with the club and not go to players and agents. It’s collusion.

  7. Hey Gaffer,

    I had an exchange with Adrian Durham on Twitter today on this Financial FairPlay ruling from the BPL clubs, this was after my politely calling him out for being sensationalist in how and what he covers (this mornings rubbish he started with about AVB and Bale staying at the club was typical).

    He claims to debate real issues in a balanced way, but doesn’t, he is the king of sensationalism. It was however a polite twitter exchange where I just pointed out that aside from adding some reason and objectivity as a self professed moderator of football debate he should debate real issues like the potential ramifications of the BPL FFP rules

    He read just the one of the many tweets in our exchange out on air saying, the FFP was rubbish etc… that no one wants to discuss it etc etc.. people then called in and wanted to discuss the FFP, and fair play to AD he actually addressed it and switched the debate to discuss it.

    The ridiculous AVB & Bale leaving the club discussion stopped… anyways, I thought it was an interesting discussion. With most against it.

    You can see the exchange on my twitter feed @dust_particle , just thought I would share.. what I didn’t expect was for me to gain a more positive view of Adrian after he did change to the more worthy topic of the BPL FFP. (I want to emphasize it is a slither of positivity thats it, no more.)

    1. Thanks for sharing. I listen to talkSPORT every day, so I know what you mean. With Durham, he’s doing two things — he’s trying to appeal to the lowest common denominator, the British punter who is listening at home or work during their normal day, so he intentionally keeps the topics lightweight. And two, he’s a sh*tstirrer. I don’t think he believes half of the arguments he makes. He’s just trying to rile people up to get them to call in so he can have a heated debate.

      I know you like Jason Cundy, but I prefer H&J.

      The Gaffer

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *