SCMP rules - Now Championship and League One

[LCFCCHRIS]

https://www.efl.com/news/2026/may/15/championship-and-league-one-clubs-approve-changes-to-financial-control-rules/

 

How will these rules affect us?

 

Surely this means book value no longer matters for us? We can shift the deadwood without worrying about how much the player initially cost? 

[Jon the Hat]

That would depend on whether amortisation costs are included- I guess they are.

on the face of it the squad cost ratio dropped 10% and the amount of owner equity allowed also dropped.  Looks worse to me.

[Terraloon]

5 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

That would depend on whether amortisation costs are included- I guess they are.

on the face of it the squad cost ratio dropped 10% and the amount of owner equity allowed also dropped.  Looks worse to me.

Squad costs include : wages , amortisation, impairment and agent fees.

[Terraloon]

7 hours ago, LCFCCHRIS said:

https://www.efl.com/news/2026/may/15/championship-and-league-one-clubs-approve-changes-to-financial-control-rules/

 

How will these rules affect us?

 

Surely this means book value no longer matters for us? We can shift the deadwood without worrying about how much the player initially cost? 

The starting point in any calculation has to be what number you are going to apply that % against. Put another way what will the football revenue numbers look like.

 

The SCMP system is dynamic and won’t be based on previous years numbers. 

 

There has been much debate about that on here the rules on football income are far from straight forward so I suppose you have two scenarios 

1) The monies due 26/27  in respect of parachute payments haven’t been drawn down in 25/26 

2) The monies due 26/27 in respect of parachute payments have been drawn down in 25/26 and are categorised as forward financing.

 

if 2 applies then I suspect that the in year numbers will show up a problem resulting in a registration embargo. The reduction in year one allowance will impact significantly 

 

The next issue will be on what date and for what trading profit ( not fees) any players are sold. There is still time in ye 30/6/26 . It may be crucial to ensure that there possibly is need to get extra income to ensure compliance but again we need to fully understand how transfer income is treated going forward  . By that I mean my initial reading it might not be transfer profit as such it may well be when you receive the cash.

 

Finally in terms of revenue how will other income streams such as gather receipts, sponsorship and commercial hold up .in cash terms there will almost certainly be redundancies amongst the administrative staff and many of those will be involved in income generation. Bit of a catch 22 !

 

It’s pretty obvious that the current players can’t be afforded. If they are in contract then the decision to move on  is theirs. They can’t be forced to and some simply will say no. Others won’t be able to get out the door quick enough and there are a third group who the club won’t be able to afford to move on because the offer there will need to be a fee that at least matches their residual value.

 

You then have the dilemma that the head coach and certain others staffs wages are included. That to me suggests it’s likely that the club will have to shop in £ land and will have to go for a young promising coach as opposed to an established name.

 

There are far too many unknowns to really get a handle on what the overall impact will be . We always knew that it was going to be a challenge to comply but I suspect it just got a whole lot more difficult.

And all that’s before we even talk about cash flow!

 

 

 

 

 

[trooky]

I don't agree with any kind of financial rules applied to football, especially limits on owner investment because it just prevents the growth of clubs. 

 

With the current ongoing farce of spygate and the fact they never put any sanction in place after Leeds, the EFL would be better placed sorting out the existing rules. 

[Scotch]

9 hours ago, LCFCCHRIS said:

https://www.efl.com/news/2026/may/15/championship-and-league-one-clubs-approve-changes-to-financial-control-rules/

 

How will these rules affect us?

 

Surely this means book value no longer matters for us? We can shift the deadwood without worrying about how much the player initially cost? 

I was thinking this too. Surely this means we have a better chance of clearing the decks, moving on the high earners and reseting with a squad that meets the wage bill requirements? Get rid of the over paid dead wood for buttons. Proper Italian team money. 

[Terraloon]

1 hour ago, trooky said:

I don't agree with any kind of financial rules applied to football, especially limits on owner investment because it just prevents the growth of clubs. 

 

With the current ongoing farce of spygate and the fact they never put any sanction in place after Leeds, the EFL would be better placed sorting out the existing rules. 

The EFL did introduce a rule following the Leeds case. It’s under that new rule that’s Southampton have ben charged.

 

The SCMP rules particularly in EFL 1&2 were/ have been introduced following representations of the clubs.

[trooky]

4 minutes ago, Terraloon said:

The EFL did introduce a rule following the Leeds case. It’s under that new rule that’s Southampton have ben charged.

 

The SCMP rules particularly in EFL 1&2 were/ have been introduced following representations of the clubs.

Yes, apparently they introduced a rule but not a sanction to go with it. That's why their is so much speculation about the punishment. 

[Terraloon]

Just now, trooky said:

Yes, apparently they introduced a rule but not a sanction to go with it. That's why their is so much speculation about the punishment. 

Very very few rules have sanctions attached to then . 
 

Let’s just look at this Southampton case. Will there be evidence to prove on the balance of probability? That’s the first hurdle even before their is talk of a sanction.

Will they be other examples  that are in earthed during the process ?
 

Will Southampton admit it or deny and then are subsequently the charge is proven ? Would there be any possibility of mitigation ?

 

Most disciplinary matters and indeed criminal cases will see a % of any sanction reduced but when it comes to an offence where the sentence or sanction is fixed in law ( murder for instance ) why would anyone or any entity ever admit guilt ? 


 

 

[les-tah]

So reading between the lines on the new rules its basically lose lose for top. If he doesnt inject his own cash injection into the club so we can spend 65% of it on transfers we might not go back up and the club will continue to de value.
 

so its either king power lose money by cash injection or king power lose money by staying in league 1.

 

So its best for all parties for Top to just sell us to a happy go lucky billionaire mr top. 

[Pliskin]

These rules entirely depend on what an owner decides to do. 
 

Top can inject money into the club and turn it into revenue, however, this is his money, and not a loan, loans don’t count. 
 

This is the only way we will be able to thrive and potentially even survive. 
 

There’s far too much going out of the club to even contemplate using revenue to sign players, we’re already operating at a colossal loss for this level. Even after losing the out of contract players our losses will be between £40-60 million before a £1 is spent 

 

Whereas this won’t necessarily impact us in terms of breaching rules, because they’re there to me manipulated, it seriously hamstrings our ability to run as a club, because we will be operating at a significant loss. If Top doesn’t inject money into the club, then the likelihood is we won’t be paying our bills….

 

The concerns are, that Top essentially puts money into the club to purely maintain it, IE, pay the bills, and nothing more, or he puts nothing into the club at all expecting it to self generate money to A, keep the club running and B, invest into the team. 
 

This simply isn’t going to happen, and appears frankly impossible. 
 

This idea of “shifting deadwood” as well needs to be dropped, we’ve been trying for 4 years and haven’t managed it, what makes people think we will all of a sudden manage it now, when our assets are less desirable than before. 

 

Our most valuable playing asset is probably Fatawu, and we won’t be getting anymore that £10m for him….. so in short, we are absolutely royally ****ed. Unless, Too injects money into the club, which he can’t afford to do. 
 

He also won’t sell it either, so we are heading the same way as Sheffield Wednesday unfortunately. 

[trooky]

1 hour ago, Terraloon said:

Very very few rules have sanctions attached to then . 
 

Let’s just look at this Southampton case. Will there be evidence to prove on the balance of probability? That’s the first hurdle even before their is talk of a sanction.

Will they be other examples  that are in earthed during the process ?
 

Will Southampton admit it or deny and then are subsequently the charge is proven ? Would there be any possibility of mitigation ?

 

Most disciplinary matters and indeed criminal cases will see a % of any sanction reduced but when it comes to an offence where the sentence or sanction is fixed in law ( murder for instance ) why would anyone or any entity ever admit guilt ? 


 

 

The rules should have sanctions, then they wouldn't need to waste so much time resolving matters of PSR or this for example. 

 

Middlesbrough wouldn't have the opportunity to demand that Southampton are kicked out if the punishment was clear.

 

It ridiculous that Southampton fans are buying tickets not knowing if the match will go ahead, Middlesbrough are still training, the game could be postponed etc.... It's not fair on Hull either, not knowing who they'll play.

 

It's hardly a major offense, when you consider teams scout the opposition during games. 

 

This is farcical, if the punishment was clear the game would go ahead and it could be dealt with over the summer when the media circus has died down.

 

The football authorities aren't fit to govern. 

 

 

[MattFox]

What ever the rules are I’m sure King Power will find a way to fail them

[Scotch]

4 hours ago, Pliskin said:

 

 

This idea of “shifting deadwood” as well needs to be dropped, we’ve been trying for 4 years and haven’t managed it, what makes people think we will all of a sudden manage it now, when our assets are less desirable than before. 

 

The goalposts have moved on that front. Before we couldn't sell players for less than their book value as it would go down as a financial loss which would count against us in terms of PSR. 

Now, we can sell players for absolutely anything and although it will still be a financial loss, it won't see us fall foul of financial rulings. If players were willing, we could even terminate contracts and it not financially hurt us but rather align our wage bill with where it needs to be. 

 

Think of all the measly bids we've had over the years from Italian teams that were less than what was still on the books. We can no accept them.

[Foxmeister]

5 hours ago, trooky said:

Yes, apparently they introduced a rule but not a sanction to go with it. That's why their is so much speculation about the punishment. 

It seems short sighted not to have included guidelines on sanctions but if they had, it would be difficult to apply in a play-off situation. It’s either in or out at this point, I suspect it will be in.

[Pliskin]

24 minutes ago, Scotch said:

The goalposts have moved on that front. Before we couldn't sell players for less than their book value as it would go down as a financial loss which would count against us in terms of PSR. 

Now, we can sell players for absolutely anything and although it will still be a financial loss, it won't see us fall foul of financial rulings. If players were willing, we could even terminate contracts and it not financially hurt us but rather align our wage bill with where it needs to be. 

 

Think of all the measly bids we've had over the years from Italian teams that were less than what was still on the books. We can no accept them.

This is true, however, the club will be relying on selling players to reinvest back into the squad, so they will still chase big money. 

[Scotch]

53 minutes ago, Pliskin said:

This is true, however, the club will be relying on selling players to reinvest back into the squad, so they will still chase big money. 

That's the fear. They will get too greedy on what they bring into the club and we will be stuck with players who dont want to be here and push us over the wage bill restrictions....

[fox_favourite]

It's never about the football anymore. All about paper pushing.

[Finnegan]

18 hours ago, LCFCCHRIS said:

We can shift the deadwood without worrying about how much the player initially cost? 

 

Yeah that sounds like a healthy approach to managing our assets.

 

[Muzzy_no7]

Boltons wage budget in league one has been around 10m according to reports. 
 

That is without our much larger revenue + 1 more season of parachute payments ‘on the books’.

 

Think we are allowed 75% of revenue as wages (60+15).

[Pita]

Not doing the expansion has come back to bite Top right on the bum 

[LCFCCHRIS]

1 hour ago, Finnegan said:

 

Yeah that sounds like a healthy approach to managing our assets.

 

Needs must. The alternative is we just keep the likes of Kristiansen, okoli, winks, Vestegaard. 

 

Besides, the unhealthy part was signing some of these idiots initially. 

Edited 16 May by LCFCCHRIS

[ParkerPen]

does anyone really care anymore, I mean really ?

[Bert]

Just bin all financial rules. 
 

The big clubs pretty much get away with spending what they want anyway which is why it was thought to be a good idea to create a level playing field per se. 

[MPH]

8 hours ago, les-tah said:

 

 

So its best for all parties for Top to just sell us to a happy go lucky billionaire mr top. 

Top IS the happy go lucky Billionaire. 
 

besides, he’s got so much invested in us that there isn’t a price that anyone would pay that would be acceptable  to him until maybe we get back to the prem..