Why is PSR being scrapped? | Kaveh Solhekol explains new Premier League financial rules

Поділитися
Вставка
  • Опубліковано 24 кві 2024
  • ► Subscribe to Sky Sports News: bit.ly/SkySportsNewsSub
    Kaveh Solhekol explains the reasoning behind the Premier League's new financial regulations that will be voted on by clubs. Under the new rules, clubs are likely to be limited to spending 85% of their revenue on squad wages, transfers and agents’ fees.
    #SkySportsNews #SkySports #Liverpool
    ► For the latest developments on this story: qrcode.skysports.com/skysport...
    More from Sky Sports on UA-cam:
    ► Sky Sports Retro: bit.ly/SkySportsRetroSub
    ► Sky Sports: bit.ly/SkySportsSub
    ► Sky Sports Football: bit.ly/SSFootballSub
    ► Sky Sports Boxing: bit.ly/SSBoxingSub
    ► Sky Sports F1: bit.ly/SubscribeSkyF1
    ► Sky Sports Cricket: bit.ly/SubscribeSkyCricket
    ► Sky Sports Golf: bit.ly/SubscribeSkySportsGolf
    ► To enquire about licensing Sky Sports News content, you can find out more here: www.skysports.com/more-sports...
  • Спорт

КОМЕНТАРІ • 479

  • @Ashmarsden
    @Ashmarsden Місяць тому +236

    Don't need a 6 min conversation, it's simple, so they don't have to deduct points from Man City & Chelsea.

    • @nathanhenry7692
      @nathanhenry7692 Місяць тому +13

      Chelsea haven’t been charged and were not guilty. City are different

    • @CareyTV
      @CareyTV Місяць тому

      @@nathanhenry7692chelsea need to make up €100m in sales in the next year or two otherwise they dont meet the criteria (i think)

    • @dkmaxie
      @dkmaxie Місяць тому +5

      Even if that's true you, can't be charged of a breach/crime and be judged on a new law.. Well in the real world you can't, but i guess this is football they'll make it up as they go...

    • @notreal1477
      @notreal1477 Місяць тому +8

      Cry about chelsea all you want, fact is without them, the super league would've already started.The americans will jump ship in a heart beat as will city if the 115 charges actually stick. Then any financial regulation goes out the window.

    • @MWS1960
      @MWS1960 Місяць тому +1

      It’s should go back to the time of the offense, so the penalty should be points deduction

  • @MrBlueSkies1878
    @MrBlueSkies1878 Місяць тому +103

    Getting rid of PSR so Man City get away with the 115 charges.

    • @russellward4624
      @russellward4624 Місяць тому +9

      It would only start in the 2024-25 season but City aren't charged with PSR so it wouldn't matter even if it didn't.

    • @mazdakmina9493
      @mazdakmina9493 Місяць тому +1

      Yeah, no. Even ignoring the fact that these rules would only apply *beginning next season* (and if a team broke the rules of previous seasons, they still gained an unfair advantage and are subject to punishment)...
      Even under these new changes, Man City broke *actual laws* (like lying on official financial documents and money laundering) and would still be in violation of the new rules if they committed the same acts under the new rules!
      Yes, I *am* still worried they'll lawyer their way out of facing consequences for the charges, but *not* because of these new rules.

    • @Neo_Rain146
      @Neo_Rain146 Місяць тому +1

      If you waiting for PSR to make your club compete with Man City then keep waiting

    • @russellward4624
      @russellward4624 Місяць тому +2

      @mazdakmina9493 what's you're evidence for this claim because eufa had no evidence at all to support that claim. The PL has no new evidence.

    • @mazdakmina9493
      @mazdakmina9493 Місяць тому

      @@russellward4624 LOL Oh, another gaslighter! It was already proven *in court* that Man City's owners falsified documents, and UEFA *proved* it, fined Man City £50 million, and later put a 2-year European competition ban on Man City - which Man City got off of only due to the "technicality" that the statutes of limitation had passed (which it only passed because they *delayed* the ruling by obstructing the investigation)!
      Take you pathetic gaslighting somewhere else, cheater lover!

  • @pipmoore2006
    @pipmoore2006 Місяць тому +118

    Even if they change the rules, Man City FFP was before the changes so the old rules should apply for them

    • @pablodrogo
      @pablodrogo Місяць тому +10

      key word being "should". with how the world works, they're gonna scrape the charges when they make the change. there's no justice left

    • @phigbill
      @phigbill Місяць тому +4

      Well they managed to dodge a bullet like that already, when the PL/FA brought in the rules for associated 3rd party sponsorship it only related to future / new deals and didn't apply to historic or retrospective sponsorships, just another dodgy rule that suited City and other Big 6 clubs.

    • @russellward4624
      @russellward4624 Місяць тому +2

      ​@pablodrogo City aren't charged with PSR. This is PSR not FFP.

    • @notreal1477
      @notreal1477 Місяць тому

      And then they leave for the super league and the rest of the domino's begin to fall. Abramovic was the only owner standing in the way of the super league and you all hounded him out under the false pretence of being a war criminal - for nothing more than paying taxes in his home country. Using the same logic, you're responsible for the million murdered civilians in Iraq because you paid taxes to the uk government. Yall actually deserve the Premier league to crumble because of your fickleness and inability to support the clubs who hold your values at heart.

    • @edwardbellamy5154
      @edwardbellamy5154 Місяць тому +2

      It's to let of yhe cheating clubs city and Chelsea if nothings done other teams should refuse to play them

  • @mikezappa
    @mikezappa Місяць тому +75

    I can imagine club owners in a room with the authorities all arguing for the right to spend more money and Daniel Levy sitting quietly at the back sweating.

    • @FootyRevolutionHQ
      @FootyRevolutionHQ Місяць тому +1

      😂😂😂 nah man

    • @websterk451
      @websterk451 Місяць тому +1

      😂😂😂😂😂

    • @USER06584B
      @USER06584B Місяць тому +2

      the owners loot these clubs in many ways, including mad consultancy fees. they dont care about the game and we are just forced to take it.

    • @simonbaker3612
      @simonbaker3612 Місяць тому +1

      "I'm nipping out to the bog guys" 😂

    • @saneman7177
      @saneman7177 Місяць тому

      Sat at the back texting his team to commence the water park & rollercoaster designs for the stadium

  • @vavaknives7632
    @vavaknives7632 Місяць тому +163

    Are they scrapping them so that City can get away with 115?!

    • @sebluketravis2438
      @sebluketravis2438 Місяць тому +3

      I can't see Richard Masters surviving that - and I don't mean his job.

    • @calth9305
      @calth9305 Місяць тому +3

      Ye they will get a massive fine instead of being relegated down the pyramid

    • @seanolusina6058
      @seanolusina6058 Місяць тому

      Whatever law comes in play, it won't be retrospective.

    • @ntokozoshaba
      @ntokozoshaba Місяць тому +1

      No. We’ll still be tried over current rules. Charges came in against current rule set.

    • @liamjohnson7887
      @liamjohnson7887 Місяць тому

      No.

  • @BritishRosie-es3zr
    @BritishRosie-es3zr Місяць тому +44

    So PSR isn't fit for purpose? Can Everton and Forest have their points back then?

    • @mazdakmina9493
      @mazdakmina9493 Місяць тому +7

      Let's be clear, the old rules still applied when they did and anyone who broke them is still liable (and that at least *should* include Man City - more on them later)!
      For a more simple (purely hypothethical) example, the rule currently states you're not allowed to have >11 players on the field. If a team fielded 12 for multiple games, and they changed the rule *now* to allow 12 players - sorry, those teams fielding 12 still were gaining an unfair advantage by fielding 12 over the teams that only fielded 11!
      And if one team was currently under trial for fielding *115* additional players (and had 126 players on the field while other teams played by the rules and only fielded 11), then yes, that trial still moves forward because they *still* broke the rules for a *major* unfair advantage!
      Oh, and it should also be noted, even with the rule changes being suggested, Man City *still* would be in breach of them if they did what they did today with the new rules! Again, in the analogy above, they can increase the number of players a team can play to 12, or even 14, or even 20, and Man City *still* would be in *massive* breach of that by fielding 126 (again, it's an example for simplicity sake. The point is, Man City broke the rules *and the law* so severely, no amount of rule changes will keep them out of violation of them! They literally laundered money and doctored their books! These aren't just rule violations, these are *major crimes* that are punishable by *prison* time! And the people being paid through these means, like Roberto Mancini, *knew!* He was being paid under the table, and guaranteed there were many others! No one better dare try to claim, "well the players and coaches didn't know, don't punish them with judgment." That's yet another defense mechanism to refuse to acknowledge the seriousness of the situation)!
      Hope that makes sense! I'll be happy to answer any further questions!

  • @um931
    @um931 Місяць тому +107

    City charged against old rules. These dont apply to 115 charges.

    • @OffMetaProfessor
      @OffMetaProfessor Місяць тому +1

      Yes it's very possibly corrupt

    • @GermanChickenwing
      @GermanChickenwing Місяць тому +3

      Then you know f all about the charges.. Do you know the rules have to be voted by 20 clubs? City is even against the new rules

    • @dan9590
      @dan9590 Місяць тому

      Man City are not being charged with any breach of PSR rules, old or new. This is a massive misconception. They are being charged with, basically, accounting fraud, which is far more serious. The Premier League are accusing them of putting money into their accounts that didn't exist.

    • @AzraKolic-bl6pt
      @AzraKolic-bl6pt Місяць тому +2

      Only 14 need to be for in to pass

    • @RandySnortin
      @RandySnortin Місяць тому +1

      Definitely some brown envelopes passed out by city owners here.

  • @andrewwells4171
    @andrewwells4171 Місяць тому +7

    All these rules do is prevent investment in clubs. Some clubs outside the big 6 have extremely wealthy owners but are unable to continually break into the top four because they are limited to what they can invest. We are already heading towards having a 1 or 2 team league like France, Spain or Germany because competition is being sucked out year by year. The big teams profited before the rules were brought in and it's the rest that have to suffer now.

    • @creepingbrain
      @creepingbrain Місяць тому

      Wealthy owners don't want to have to pump huge sums of money into their club every year to cover losses. But if your competitors are doing it, you feel you need to do it too. All that "no restrictions" would do is result in transfer fees and wages spiraling out of control, and then it becomes a race to see who can go into administration first. Every club voted for the new rules, it was a unanimous decision, that tells you everything.

    • @redtimez4520
      @redtimez4520 Місяць тому

      No these rules should prevent some owners like Newcastle buying an entire squad with 1 billion budget every season lol

  • @Petersworld77
    @Petersworld77 Місяць тому +16

    How do our top clubs compete in Europe then? Are Real Madrid, Barcelona etc going to play by these rules, of course not.

    • @RgjDj1878
      @RgjDj1878 Місяць тому

      They are the only 2 clubs that pay silly money outside of the prem and Saudi.

    • @russellward4624
      @russellward4624 Місяць тому +1

      ​@RgjDj1878 but thats because Bayern have a monopoly in Germany. Thier wage bill is double Dortmunds and 28xs the bottom club. So they don't have to pay big transfers or wages because they're the only option in Germany and can't get into bidding wars.

    • @RgjDj1878
      @RgjDj1878 Місяць тому +1

      @@russellward4624 monopoly or not they aren’t paying big money. It isn’t mega money to go to a game either. At the end of the day the rate money is going at in the prem it will become a bubble that bursts and everyone will suffer down the pyramid. This is a working class game and fans can’t expect to have to keep footing the bill.

    • @Neo_Rain146
      @Neo_Rain146 Місяць тому

      Oh your mean that bankrupt club

    • @russellward4624
      @russellward4624 Місяць тому

      @RgjDj1878 because they have a monopoly. Theyre the only club in the country that can pay high wages. That's why they sign every good player from their rivals. Their rivals can't pay wages that even Forrest can pay.

  • @innercircle341
    @innercircle341 Місяць тому +17

    The 85% rule just cements the status quo

  • @allthegoodnamesweretaken7351
    @allthegoodnamesweretaken7351 Місяць тому +9

    So they are getting rid of PSR due to it not being fit for purpose but trust the same people who made PSR up to have another go at getting it right.... That makes sense..
    Yet the same people are okay with personal payments to Ref's from owners of a competing club, team's breaching T&C's and violating financial agreements is also okay, wonky var lines that don't actually make any sense if you understand basic mathematics and the protection of officials who clearly are controlling the flow and creating drama to maximise 'entertainment' is also okay. But you can't call it out otherwise you face fines and being lambasted in the media. Grim.. I could go on and on too.. This isn't a fair sporting competitive leauge, it's borderline a dictatorship masked as football.
    I and I'm sure so many others are loosing trust and faith in the Premier league.

  • @nicholasbolas
    @nicholasbolas Місяць тому +12

    Instead of basing it off the bottom team, which can change every season.
    Do an AVERAGE of the non-European slots. Even the average revenue of the entire league should be explored.
    This allows lower clubs to spend more, and don't forget the big guns are always lifting the averages up. This average revenue is still way higher than other league winners. This still makes EPL competitive, and maintains the no1 league in the world.

    • @nottopcat5956
      @nottopcat5956 Місяць тому +2

      It’s based on broadcast revenue, which is distributed by the league

  • @Joseph-ig6sh
    @Joseph-ig6sh Місяць тому +1

    I love how Kaveh explains it so clearly and precisely

  • @stevenhaas9622
    @stevenhaas9622 Місяць тому +5

    If the premier league really want to fix something thats actually broken how about starting with the abysmal standard of refereeing and VAR in the league. It is by far the biggest thing hurting their on-field product. These new rules is all just a bunch of shuffling around the deck chairs on the titanic especially while city and chelsea are allowed to continue cooking their books for a decade.

  • @TyrellMunson
    @TyrellMunson Місяць тому +4

    Everton & Forest want their points back!!

  • @henry6451
    @henry6451 Місяць тому +7

    The rules have not been used. That is the issue.

  • @Alnard
    @Alnard Місяць тому +3

    Bending over backwards for City and UAE.
    Cancer in our beautiful game.

  • @brandonzane519
    @brandonzane519 Місяць тому +6

    This has been waaaay too much Kaveh the last few days, I've reached my quota

  • @dawaring169
    @dawaring169 Місяць тому +23

    Just making Man City's case stronger,
    why don't they just say we have accepted City's bride and would like to forget about them breaking the rules!

    • @OfficialFA
      @OfficialFA Місяць тому +2

      That would be great for the league

  • @davidbennett5354
    @davidbennett5354 Місяць тому +1

    I don't think you will ever get a "One size fits all" scenario

  • @lowercase01
    @lowercase01 Місяць тому +30

    Give Everton and Forest their points back, admit you screwed it all up, and start again when you get yourselves together. Embarrassing.

  • @JAPARICAN50-50
    @JAPARICAN50-50 Місяць тому +6

    There’s always something new with this league

    • @keithfreeman7725
      @keithfreeman7725 Місяць тому

      Corruption is as old as the hills, the only thing 'new' is that it's so blatant.

  • @mitch7848
    @mitch7848 Місяць тому +2

    What I can’t understand is if they’re saying PSR didn’t work then what benefit does the new model provide?
    Essentially you’ve gone from being able to make a loss to needing to remain in profit by only spending up to 85% of your revenue?
    To me it sounds like even more of a problem than previously. The anchoring makes some sense though but these rules just don’t add up for me.

    • @RibbonAssets
      @RibbonAssets Місяць тому

      That’s where I’m kinda at also. The anchoring needs to pass or at least have some form of anchoring such as taking the league average team broadcast revenue as opposed to the lowest teams broadcast revenue. Otherwise I don’t see it working as well as we all hope, but if anchoring doesn’t pass then hopefully I’m wrong!

    • @stephenparker5421
      @stephenparker5421 Місяць тому

      Next vote.... increase the lowest teams tv rights 😂😂😂 just because Leeds and pompey shat the bed I don't see why we have to strangle the prem with it

  • @akashgooner4892
    @akashgooner4892 Місяць тому

    Love the panel..keep up the good work…kaveh is 🔥..

  • @dstewusa7054
    @dstewusa7054 Місяць тому +4

    It’s being scrapped as part of negotiations with super Rich owners of clubs

  • @tigergooner7214
    @tigergooner7214 Місяць тому +1

    Whys it taking so long to charge Citee 😮

  • @nickyboy5511
    @nickyboy5511 Місяць тому

    Potentially a good idea just need agree on who’s revenue to use

  • @drwagumaeliasjb4643
    @drwagumaeliasjb4643 Місяць тому

    Kaveh is so good at explaining football rules

  • @alancawfield6549
    @alancawfield6549 Місяць тому +2

    This spending limit (of 5 times what the least wealthy club spends) is a decent idea and much fairer than what currently exists.

    • @mazdakmina9493
      @mazdakmina9493 Місяць тому

      And that's why many of the big clubs are lobbying against it!
      But yes, I absolutely agree it needs to be in place!

  • @jjfreer
    @jjfreer Місяць тому +9

    Teams like Newcastle and Aston Villa need to be able to spend the wealth they have available, which will only make the league better. They need to find a way to not hold back teams that are more than able to spend, and which would then be able to challenge the top of the table if allowed to do so. I dont know Villas or Newcastles Revenue though so not sure if these new rules will even help.

    • @Hungdiddly
      @Hungdiddly Місяць тому

      Villa 😂😂
      Okay.

    • @davidbennett5354
      @davidbennett5354 Місяць тому

      @@Hungdiddly Newcastle supporter here. You do realise where Villa are? you do realise the type of players Villa can attract? Villa are a massive club who can quite easily challenge the so called top 6 if they were allowed to, just like Newcastle can

    • @jjfreer
      @jjfreer Місяць тому

      @@Hungdiddly yes villa. Do your research...

    • @Hungdiddly
      @Hungdiddly Місяць тому

      villa are far from a “massive club”…
      They rely on Watkins, martinez and VAR to pull victories, which was evident during the Chelsea match.
      Villa have a long way to go.

    • @jjfreer
      @jjfreer Місяць тому

      @@Hungdiddly haha what a load of rubbish. sore chelsea fan it was a foul anywhere on the pitch get over it. if its the other way round they woiuld be crying penalty.

  • @tomwebster5348
    @tomwebster5348 Місяць тому +25

    The wealthiest club in the world can’t spend, while a club in 500million of debt can spend 200m/season, giving 300k/wk contracts, with no issues… very sustainable 😂
    Update to replies:
    I’m a Newcastle fan - I know it’s the owners that are wealthy, not the club. It’s not rocket science. However, that is pretty much a technicality in regard to transfer spending since it’s so clear they’d invest and spend what they want if they were allowed to. They’ve openly said this and their actions in other sports are a shining example that they don’t mess around given the chance.
    As for servicing any debt - I.e. United - yeah, but it’s still not sustainable in a loss making business in the real world.

    • @stevenhaas9622
      @stevenhaas9622 Місяць тому +5

      LEt me take a wild guess. You think Newcastle is "the wealthiest club in the world"?

    • @gustaaf1892
      @gustaaf1892 Місяць тому +3

      So you're telling everyone that you don't understand economic principles. Debt is irrelevant providing it can be serviced through revenue and profits. Most companies have debts.

    • @jimhuf8102
      @jimhuf8102 Місяць тому +3

      @@gustaaf1892 problem is, no other club is now allowed to take on that level of debt otherwise newcastle would take out a massive loan

    • @gustaaf1892
      @gustaaf1892 Місяць тому

      @@jimhuf8102 Newcastle can take out whatever loan it wants to, but it won't increase their revenue or profit. In fact it would reduce their profit because the debt servicing costs would be deducted from those. Newcastle is limited by how much money the club generates.

    • @cannyscott
      @cannyscott Місяць тому +3

      ​@stevenhaas9622 newcastle have the wealthiest owners in the world but we are very very far from being a wealthy club 😂

  • @jonnyhull7860
    @jonnyhull7860 Місяць тому +3

    Just let clubs spend wot they want in my opinion but have a rule in place that if that owner of the wants too sell club that they have to clear deubts strait away or face instant points deduction or administration or relegation ,because you have mega rich owners at ncastle ,villa , bmouth that are not aloud to spend cos off ffp ,psr so they have to sell 1 of there stars hows that fair and its not fair compettion

  • @garrymclaughlan6433
    @garrymclaughlan6433 Місяць тому

    So get rid of it in time so it won't possibly affect bigger teams ?

  • @andrewwright4195
    @andrewwright4195 Місяць тому +4

    It will kill the market if you squad cap likes wages and stuff

    • @bleb87
      @bleb87 Місяць тому +1

      That's okay. Who cares about the market.

  • @tatendamagombe1998
    @tatendamagombe1998 Місяць тому +1

    Their nothing to discuss, the people responsible are failing to uphold the law

  • @Alan_J_Cooper
    @Alan_J_Cooper Місяць тому +1

    Luxury tax > Salary cap
    The MLB is the best example of how well the luxury tax works. Smaller clubs win the World Series fairly often.

    • @RibbonAssets
      @RibbonAssets Місяць тому +2

      I agree! However I think with how wealthy some owners are they also need to implement a hard cap at some point to make it so the owners with hundreds of billions can’t just still overpay to win the league every year. Personally I’d do a soft cap at 85% of the leagues average team broadcast revenue. Anything past that gets fined 100% so 100M over would have to pay 200M, etc. Then I’d have a hard cap at 100% the broadcast revenue of the highest paid club (that didn’t qualify for Europe). This way any clubs can go over the soft cap if they’d like but there’s still a hard cap that no team can cross. I think this would be a fair approach most teams could get behind that wouldn’t clearly favor or punish bigger and richer clubs significantly more than the smaller clubs. Plus the fines paid for going over the soft cap could be distributed further down the pyramid

  • @sanmateoflights
    @sanmateoflights Місяць тому

    Get rid of VAR until you get fully automated offsides

  • @OfficialFA
    @OfficialFA Місяць тому +1

    This is great👍👍

  • @TheShaneGuy
    @TheShaneGuy Місяць тому +5

    Surely "Anchoring" by this description, will only hinder the European clubs the poorest championship promoted club is setting the budget for clubs in champions league, and europa league cup competitions. Why not just adopt the UEFA rules to give the clubs playing European football the best chance of European success which ultimately strengthens the national team as well.

    • @nottopcat5956
      @nottopcat5956 Місяць тому +2

      It doesn’t matter how poor they are because it’s based on their broadcast revenue. Gives an incentive to split that more equally (or maybe even give the lower clubs more)

    • @g-nativesoulofficial603
      @g-nativesoulofficial603 Місяць тому +1

      Wages don't strengthen teams

    • @comedianchrisdoering4097
      @comedianchrisdoering4097 Місяць тому +3

      Simple solution for the big 6: give up a bigger percentage of broadcasting revenue to the smaller clubs. ;)

  • @davidbennett5354
    @davidbennett5354 Місяць тому

    Not sure why it should be based on television revenue. Thats basically saying Sky and TNT control clubs spending or have i picked that up wrong?

  • @mattswinnerton9892
    @mattswinnerton9892 Місяць тому +3

    It’s a new season FFP rules have been scrapped and Man City will start the league with a 15 point head start due to how well they have complied with newly implemented regulations 😂

  • @guitarfreak888
    @guitarfreak888 Місяць тому

    All these rules would mean nothing until it is enforced, NOT just for clubs at the bottom of the table but also to those who managed to win the league by breaking the rules.

  • @BenM388
    @BenM388 Місяць тому

    So will the new rules be punished with points deductions for breaching these new rules or will it all be just financial penalties and a fine just become part of the transfer cost?

  • @Stand663
    @Stand663 Місяць тому

    Whatever rules they’ll introduce the clubs with the mega budgets will get around it. There’s too much money in the PL. The PL itself is not going to limit itself on how much revenue they get from the clubs. It’s all conjecture .

  • @tccandler
    @tccandler Місяць тому +2

    Uruguay won the very first World Cup -- and as a result, Everton have been docked another 6 points.

  • @marksteps1712
    @marksteps1712 Місяць тому

    what is happening with manchester city and leicester city?

  • @captainhowdy9845
    @captainhowdy9845 Місяць тому +1

    They won't retrospectively apply PSR to 115 and Chelsea Hotel Sales Ltd, but they also won't give Forest or Everton their points back, of course.

    • @russellward4624
      @russellward4624 Місяць тому

      Because that's not how rules work.

    • @captainhowdy9845
      @captainhowdy9845 Місяць тому

      @@russellward4624 That's right.
      That's why I said they won't do it. You can read, right?
      But it's very convenient for 115 and the Hotel Sellers.

    • @mrgzola25
      @mrgzola25 Місяць тому

      Explain your issue selling the hotels? Assets they own?

    • @captainhowdy9845
      @captainhowdy9845 Місяць тому

      @@mrgzola25 They sold them to themselves 🤣🤣🤣
      I didn't think that needed explaining

    • @henrychibuzor2380
      @henrychibuzor2380 Місяць тому

      ​@captainhowdy9845 it's still theirs so they have the right to sell it to whoever they want .

  • @iaindodds
    @iaindodds Місяць тому

    If this doesn't scream Government intervention required, I don't know what does

  • @MichaelGGarry
    @MichaelGGarry Місяць тому

    How about banning state owned clubs?
    How about having an actual owner test that works?

  • @craigywild
    @craigywild Місяць тому +3

    The top 6 clubs with these deep pockets should be ashamed of themselves. Instead of embracing ideas for rules that try to give more of a level playing field that in turn should create a better competition for every team and every supporter they continue to think about themselves and splashing their money around. The law/rule makers should think of a system for the good of the game's supporters. Not the owners, not the players. Think along the lines of finding something with principles along the lines of a Golf Handicap system. The best players always grumble about how many shots their higher handicap opponents get before the game starts. The best players nearly always win regardless but the game is more of a competition.
    If they don't want to do this then just bob off and form your elite club league and see how that goes...

    • @keithfreeman7725
      @keithfreeman7725 Місяць тому

      I don't watch European or international games and I can certainly not watch another competition.

    • @Hungdiddly
      @Hungdiddly Місяць тому

      You do know arsenal and spurs are 2/3 clubs that voted keep the PSR.

  • @luckymark571
    @luckymark571 Місяць тому +8

    This is bad, your affecting premier clubs in european competitions by doing this, like how MLS is limiting there potential they can have by a dumb salary cap rule

    • @gustaaf1892
      @gustaaf1892 Місяць тому +3

      Salary caps are used to ensure a reasonably even competition and provides every club with an opportunity to potentially win the competition. You don't get a few clubs to dominate from here to eternity.

    • @luckymark571
      @luckymark571 Місяць тому +3

      @@gustaaf1892 And that's why MLS is limiting it's potential ask any American and they will say to get rid of the rule, thats why they suck in international competitions they same will happen to premier league clubs if that happens

    • @marcseigar6873
      @marcseigar6873 Місяць тому

      If the squad control rule limits costs to 85% of revenue, it still benefits the “big 6”. The anchor rule will never pass.

  • @simonbaker3612
    @simonbaker3612 Місяць тому

    PSR in theory is fine, not perfect but the concept is sound. Problem is the rules themselves havent been updated to reflect transfer fee inflation, wage growth etc so the £35m per season would have been more sensible in 2018 or whenever it was conceived but in 2024 £35m hardly buys a squad player.

  • @scottymitch1
    @scottymitch1 Місяць тому +2

    Surely the big problem facing any EPL rules is that clubs play in England and Europe. Any of these suggested rules will make English clubs uncompetitive in Europe. Salary caps only work with comps like the NFL, NBA, NRL (in Australia) because all games played by the teams are in that competition. If you set rules for all of Europe, you'll create greater spending differences within some countries. And any effort to substantially reduce all player costs will just see players begging poor and going on strike. I just think it is so difficult to structure a system that works.

  • @xiangdee9308
    @xiangdee9308 Місяць тому

    How would you know the bottom side?

  • @purplecrayon7281
    @purplecrayon7281 Місяць тому

    There is a very simple solution. Each club can spend whatever they want on transfers, players' wages, etc. The catch is the weekly wages of each team's starting XI cannot exceed a certain agreed upon number. This will also prevent rich clubs from hoarding top players earning top salaries since you cannot field them together on matchday.

  • @GamingRobioto
    @GamingRobioto Місяць тому

    To reinforce the glass ceiling futher

  • @nelsoncarvalho6338
    @nelsoncarvalho6338 Місяць тому

    What happened to 85% of Rev for clubs in Europe and 100% for all other clubs?

  • @SuperCityMCFC
    @SuperCityMCFC Місяць тому +1

    Can we really recognise any of United, Liverpool or Arsenal's historical success if they just rig rules in their favour? Luckily for us our owners were able to run rings around them

  • @carlgallimore1380
    @carlgallimore1380 Місяць тому

    They should limit the amount of foreign players in each squad . Look after ur own

  • @eggsII
    @eggsII Місяць тому

    Curious about a tax related to over-spending rich clubs to subsidize poorer clubs. The share portion would be distributed based on league position. Divide the table into 4ths. Bottom half brackets split 60% of the tax. Top half brackets split 40% of the tax.

    • @stephenparker5421
      @stephenparker5421 Місяць тому

      So then teams with nothing to play for tank games to get in the bottom half of the table toward the end of the season? Think it through a bit

    • @eggsII
      @eggsII Місяць тому

      @@stephenparker5421thanks for the suggestion. This concept is used in other sports leagues. Not suggesting that mine is the ultimate solution. Important to note that having the bottom three relegated to a league that produces less revenue is a strong disincentive to “tank”.

  • @george.a_m
    @george.a_m Місяць тому +3

    anything but cities charges

  • @gavincunningham4598
    @gavincunningham4598 Місяць тому

    Because Mr Masters has realised he will never send Everton down via points deductions ...plus nobody signed any players in Jan which makes the league look bad

  • @averagename9978
    @averagename9978 Місяць тому

    There should be a world wide cap of 350k and a minimum of 50k it would take away the money issues most teams have when it comes to buying players and more than likely players would go where they want not where had more money

    • @mothedon202
      @mothedon202 Місяць тому

      Every league has a right to decide we live in a free market world!

  • @eddie_1878
    @eddie_1878 Місяць тому +16

    ‘We don’t think it’s fair’ 😂. No the issue is it’s actually FAIRER, which is exactly what the ‘media 6’ don’t want.

  • @busker1
    @busker1 Місяць тому

    There will still be points deductions with the new one or won't they? and appeals

    • @stevenhaas9622
      @stevenhaas9622 Місяць тому +1

      right. if the "problem" with the old rules was that clubs broke them and had to be punished then nothing really changes. clubs will still break the new rules and have to be punished for it. Personally I'm glad teams are getting points deducted. The only problem is that they have thrown the book at the small fish and not the big time cheaters (city and chelsea).

  • @jordansamuels2052
    @jordansamuels2052 Місяць тому +1

    They will give Everton and Forest points back so they can wave away Man City violations.

  • @wayned3375
    @wayned3375 Місяць тому

    Just come up with a figure say 250 million per year no club could spend more than that per year on transfers would be fair

  • @OffMetaProfessor
    @OffMetaProfessor Місяць тому +12

    People are so deluded they dont understand City are still getting charged due to "allegedly" breaking the rules within the time frame they existed.
    While the top 6 want the rules changed before they are also in breach, as they only wanted the rules to stop teams like City displacing them in the first place.
    England needs an independent regulator because the original top 6 are out of control.

    • @donjesson7160
      @donjesson7160 Місяць тому +1

      I will put money on all they get is a fine , so they put a load of money into the fa pockets.

    • @creepingbrain
      @creepingbrain Місяць тому +1

      The top clubs have to comply with the stricter UEFA regs, with a squad cost control ratio of 70% and allowed losses of just €5m per year. If the big clubs pass the UEFA regs, which they have to, they absolutely fly through the PL regs.

    • @Bdbtg28691
      @Bdbtg28691 Місяць тому +2

      To be fair, England's dubious ownership rules have damaged European football as a whole. Oligarchs and petro-states aren't good for football.

    • @russellward4624
      @russellward4624 Місяць тому +1

      ​@@donjesson7160because the PL has no evidence.

    • @russellward4624
      @russellward4624 Місяць тому

      ​@@Bdbtg28691and Barca and Real are?

  • @Si-Toecutter
    @Si-Toecutter Місяць тому +16

    So city can avoid being relegated

  • @sahabufonyuy3649
    @sahabufonyuy3649 Місяць тому

    Squad Cost Control Rules. What a joke

  • @DJ_Shenanigan00
    @DJ_Shenanigan00 Місяць тому +4

    Literally moving the goalposts

  • @MaterLacrymarum
    @MaterLacrymarum Місяць тому

    Then why have PSR next season? It's an exercise in futility.

  • @andrebarclay5188
    @andrebarclay5188 Місяць тому +3

    People need to remember we are not Americans

  • @darreno2428
    @darreno2428 6 днів тому

    Because it's starting to affect the big 6 clubs. Any other excuse is a lie.

  • @stevenevans5488
    @stevenevans5488 Місяць тому +2

    A club should be able to spend what they want, if it goes wrong for the club that the owners faullt

    • @creepingbrain
      @creepingbrain Місяць тому

      Then it just becomes a race to the bottom and lots of clubs would go into administration.

    • @jakelister5152
      @jakelister5152 Місяць тому

      What about the fans, these are 100 Yr old clubs, no one wants to see them going into administration

    • @stephenparker5421
      @stephenparker5421 Місяць тому

      ​@creepingbrain then a sugar daddy comes along and invests billions into turning it around and next thing you know you're in the champions league. Why shouldn't that be allowed??? Just so long as there are some kinds of rules around the new owners from stitching up the club like that pompey bloke it shouldn't be an issue

  • @victorongaro3485
    @victorongaro3485 Місяць тому

    So the Man City case will commence after abolishment of PSR? Are they trying to render the Man City Case irrelevant?

  • @neilh2475
    @neilh2475 Місяць тому +1

    The rich clubs will keep winning, while the bottom clubs will always be in the bottom half of the table.

  • @ashlfc4eva
    @ashlfc4eva Місяць тому +1

    “Just” 14 out of 20 clubs voted for PSR… so 70% then kaveh 🙄.. so majority voted it in. Not just the big clubs and now they’re wanting to limit the spending of big clubs… look at madrids team. They’re going to get mbappe, Endrick, alphonso Davies almost nailed on too! Apparently really keen on yoro from Lille. By limiting the spending of the big clubs, it’ll have a big impact on how they do in Europe and also the league! It doesn’t enable the smaller clubs to spend more, it’s just restricting the bigger clubs from spending!…. Being a lfc fan we’re 8/9th for net spend in the last 9 years.. spent hundreds of millions less than the other top 5. So I’m not biased with my comments. As I said 8th/9th in the table for net spend

    • @killiemucken
      @killiemucken Місяць тому

      I think that’s what they want more of spend smarter not more

    • @creepingbrain
      @creepingbrain Місяць тому

      The big clubs have to comply with the stricter UEFA regs. Those regs are the same for Madrid as they are for Liverpool. The new PL regs will make no difference to the spending power of the big clubs.

  • @Neo_Rain146
    @Neo_Rain146 Місяць тому

    Very easily circumvented as city have already been doing with inflated sponsorship deal eg: Etihad Airline sponsorship.

  • @beaniesatthebeach8457
    @beaniesatthebeach8457 Місяць тому

    But this is gonna disadvantage smaller clubs, they can't compete with the bigger teams
    If anything bigger teams can bypass this easily, this will keep bigger teams at the top
    This is football, you can pay via back doors

  • @bobs2kk401
    @bobs2kk401 Місяць тому +1

    La Liga and Ligue 1 will love this. Just make Real and Barca and PSG stronger even Bayern. As they can offer better contracts and the prem will lose its mojo and make all the other leagues stronger.

  • @marineboy1964
    @marineboy1964 Місяць тому +5

    What's Bournemouths revenue
    What's Manchester city's revenue
    I wonder who it's going to benefit out of the 2 clubs that seems fair and equal

    • @alone2break
      @alone2break Місяць тому

      The mid clubs will benefit from it as they might be on the same financial power as the top clubs..

    • @gustaaf1892
      @gustaaf1892 Місяць тому

      Are you asking about City's real or reported revenue? Big difference between the two.

  • @Bulletproof666
    @Bulletproof666 Місяць тому

    If they don’t punish City or Chelsea after they change the rules then shouldn’t Everton and Forest get their points back

  • @Kyleterp1
    @Kyleterp1 Місяць тому +1

    What could help out with their spending a decent bit is if clubs don’t pay agents. The players should be paying for the agents

  • @beachgaara
    @beachgaara Місяць тому

    Imagine being able to talk without clapping your hands...

  • @drwagumaeliasjb4643
    @drwagumaeliasjb4643 Місяць тому

    Top teams should support the bottom teams to broadcast more..so that they spend more

    • @stevenhaas9622
      @stevenhaas9622 Місяць тому

      the sad fact is that when it comes to TV revenue no one cares about the likes of Sheffield united, bournemouth, palace etc. They only exist to be opponents of the top teams. Truth be told no one really cares about City either. Their global fan base is minuscule. United, Liverpool, Arsenal are the big TV draws around the world

  • @stuartscott1679
    @stuartscott1679 Місяць тому

    C'mon sky sports why can't you talk about 115 charges anymore???🤔

  • @aaronhunter4483
    @aaronhunter4483 Місяць тому +2

    Look, just let the clubs spend what they want on their own team, but deduct a team 10 points for every £100 million in debt. All these stupid rules are just stopping the best players coming to the premier league. Our league is getting worse every year and all because the top 6 cartel does not want any competition.

    • @creepingbrain
      @creepingbrain Місяць тому

      Punishing clubs for debt would mean that clubs couldn't build new training grounds, redevelop their stadiums, or build new stadiums.
      As for investing into the squad punishing debt would make it more difficult. Why? Because wealthy owners pump money into clubs via loans. Debt. Think about a team that gets promoted to the PL. They have a wealthy owner. He pumps £200m in via loans to buy players so they can be competitive in the PL. Under your rules that club would be docked 20 points. But if the rules are based on allowed losses, or a squad cost ratio, that club owner can make that investment because of the way transfer fees are expensed and losses calculated.

    • @jakelister5152
      @jakelister5152 Місяць тому

      Premier league is already hoarding all the talent with their ridiculous wages

  • @Nienna1837
    @Nienna1837 Місяць тому

    They can't have it both ways. Otherwise award more points to teams with lower squad costs for every win and draw against bigger squad cost teams.

  • @jonasloic4194
    @jonasloic4194 Місяць тому +1

    115 CHARGE ?

  • @frasercornwall3517
    @frasercornwall3517 Місяць тому

    This needs to be completed fast however it’s done so that the EFL funding deal can be done

  • @Mcfctreble23
    @Mcfctreble23 Місяць тому

    Changing rules because Man Utd and Arsenal are getting close to threshold. Only clubs not close are Man City ( prize money from treble)West Ham (rice money ) and Liverpool.

  • @BOOGERBOY1
    @BOOGERBOY1 Місяць тому

    Yes salary cap is a start

  • @Chambo1990
    @Chambo1990 Місяць тому

    Everton did vote for PSR

  • @Akuzastar
    @Akuzastar Місяць тому +1

    If the top 6 dont think its fair, why dont they just level the tv money across the league then it makes it fair for everyone..?
    No chance of that though 😂

  • @azza536
    @azza536 Місяць тому +10

    Why is the premier league so focused on money and not their wanky VAR?

    • @ThePerks2010
      @ThePerks2010 Місяць тому +1

      Var lines the league administrators pockets, clubs losing money means they miss out too, nothing but corporate greed essentially.

    • @leo20865
      @leo20865 Місяць тому

      Var is not the premier league dick head

  • @mornsey81
    @mornsey81 Місяць тому

    Moving the goal posts for the big clubs so they don't have to go through a lengthy ffp breach case nice 🤦🏻

  • @albertbrammer9263
    @albertbrammer9263 Місяць тому

    Kaveh has not read UEFA's rules.
    Squad Cost includes:
    Amortisation.
    Agents Fees.
    Manager's Salary.
    Any fees for a manager.
    Team's salary.
    Minus transfer fees in.

    • @albertbrammer9263
      @albertbrammer9263 Місяць тому

      Plus, if you want to play in UEFA competition you have to meet 70% and not 85%, with maximum loss per year of €20m (ie being above 70%).

  • @razorman1977
    @razorman1977 Місяць тому

    Salary cap, surely players will go to other countries then.

  • @normanseaman6397
    @normanseaman6397 Місяць тому

    Why not the bigger your debt the less you can spend. I don’t think spurs or Man U are likely to vote for that