davieG Posted 26 May 2016 Author Share Posted 26 May 2016 Short Term Cost Controls, which were agreed in March !? Anyone even know/hear about this, or was it an FA secret board hosted in North London to ensure that no small team can do a Leicester ever again. It would be the PL or UEFA not the FA and don't they need a majority of clubs voting for any changes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UPinCarolina Posted 26 May 2016 Share Posted 26 May 2016 Seems like a ploy by the top dogs to try and keep everyone else in the kennel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
st albans fox Posted 26 May 2016 Share Posted 26 May 2016 it would have been a PL meeting and there has to be a 2/3 majority to carry PL rule changes. my point is that we could well have supported this restriction. it shouldn't be assumed that we were against it at the time. http://www.premierleague.com/en-gb/news/news/2015-16/mar/240316-premier-league-clubs-agree-to-continue-short-term-cost-control-rules.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KansasFox Posted 26 May 2016 Share Posted 26 May 2016 The line that interests me the most is this: "But I don't think if you're owner you are not going to do exit clause anyway..." Our owners strike me as shrewd and competitive business people. Does this mean they'd be prepared to ignore or stall on an exit clause as someone on Foxestalk has mentioned as happening before? Or have I misunderstood what seems to be an accidentally ambiguous comment ie: a) As owners we wouldn't want to include release clauses in contracts or b) We wouldn't transfer someone on the basis of a release clause if it was against our interest? It's an unloaded ask. I honestly don't know what is meant but am equally sure there was no intention to cloud the issue. It's not always easy to express precise opinion in a foreign language. I read it as a accidental double negative. I think what he was trying to say is that, as owners, we don't like to include release clauses as you said in a). I would imagine a release clause is rarely in the interest of the club owners, other than as a compromise in negotiations Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cc_star Posted 26 May 2016 Share Posted 26 May 2016 Just away of preventing the upwardly mobile and big clubs keeping the prize money to themselves... Dressed up as fair play Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazly Posted 26 May 2016 Share Posted 26 May 2016 The financial rules are playing an important part in turning around the game into businesses rather than rich mens toys to get thrown away when bored. 14 of the EPL sides reported profits in their last fiscal years result, I expect if you went back 10 years you could count the profitable clubs on one hand and have a few fingers spare. There is clearly a disparity where one clube pays £200mn wages and another £40mn but, the big money TV deals should allow the £40mn wages club to develop their facilities, youth teams and lower ticket prices (ha ha) as there will be barriers in place to just put the money toward wages. As the owners say Southampton is a shining example of how to be raped every year and still come back smiling. Leicesters turn now. A useful read on the subject: https://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/may/25/premier-league-finances-club-by-club-breakdown-david-conn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kendal Fox Posted 26 May 2016 Share Posted 26 May 2016 This is why it's important to increase the stadium size because that is what basically dictates how much we can pay players. Man city did it, west ham have done it and now spurs. It's nothing to do with how many we can get in be rather how many seats we have. Yep, that would go a long way towards ensuring better packages for the players in the grand scheme of things.. Still, I'm digressing but reading the part about them having to take into consideration the need to set aside some funds for new players to bolster the squad for our title defence and champions league campaign!!! I still can't believe this is us!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
st albans fox Posted 26 May 2016 Share Posted 26 May 2016 thinking about this and I hope I'm wrong but I see Top's interviews as being either A) a way of earning the hierarchy brownie points from the fans if we hang onto everyone. B) preparing the ground for losing at least one of our Crown Jewels. can't see why he would see the need for A as surely the owners and managements standing couldn't currently be any higher Concerned about B as I believe there are plenty of creative ways around the regulations and given the fact we have CL next season, we are a special case which the regs allow for. So if we lose a player that the fans wanted keep, the owners have already put their excuse out there. My view would be that it's either a financial decision (we are being run as a business) which wouldn't resonate well with most on here or walshy feels he has a replacement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.