WHO Poll
Q: Shall we bring polls back?
Yes
55%
  
No
6%
  
We can't vote until we actually know what we're voting for
39%
  



Alan 1:08 Mon Jul 1
Change to FFP rules
Mail

Premier League hand clubs transfer window boost as they scrap inhibiting Financial Fair Play rule that forced clubs to keep wage-bill increases under £7m each year

From July 1, 2019, new rulings have been applied to the football transfer window
An element of Financial Fair Play ruling has been dropped, in order to help sides
Teams were previously limited on wages by Short Term Cost Control (STCC)
Now clubs do not have to fund certain wage rises by using commercial deals

By Danny Gallagher

Premier League clubs have been handed a boost in the market, after changes to the ruling in the transfer window freed up additional budget for player wages.

Each summer, and January, teams compete against each other to acquire the best talent while adhering to recruitment guidelines and spending within their means.

With Financial Fair Play (FFP) forever looming over top level sides, Premier League teams have always been cautious when taking to the market. Now, however, a rule keeping check on wage bill increases has been removed.

As of July 1, an adjustment to the ruling system has increased the scope for clubs to buy players.

As part of the transfer window, clubs have been governed and somewhat limited by Short Term Cost Control (STCC), which was brought into play in 2013.

The STCC meant that any 12-month increase in player wages of above £7m had to be funded by new commercial deals.

However, this has now been dropped, meaning clubs have more room for manoeuvre when it comes to agreeing wage deals with players.

Clubs no longer have to be as wary of the total costs of deals being handed out. Under the previous ruling, even if clubs could afford certain wage demands, this would have to be partly made up by the commercial deals in order to show an ability to generate cash flow and spend within their means.

The change is expected to benefit most clubs, though particularly those who regularly find themselves just below the main competing pack in the Premier League.

Those sides who finished last season in seventh to 10th place, for example, will now find themselves will more freedom to bring in players with the added bonus of being able to offer more enticing wages.

Last season those aforementioned position finishes included the likes of Wolves, Everton, Leicester and West Ham.

These teams have, in previous years, showed both an ability and willingness to spend big in the transfer market.

Likewise, newly promoted sides who have the benefit of the financial windfall of reaching the Premier League will now be able to acquire players more freely, without an immediate worry of how to generate additional capital to show a balanced system.

While the transfer window is yet to truly kick into action this summer, a number of top Premier League teams have already gone about putting in some early work.

Manchester United's early capture of Daniel James from Swansea and Aaron Wan-Bissaka from Crystal Palace showed an early emphasis on rebuilding with youth.

The two players however picked up huge wage rises as a result of joining the Red Devils, with Wan-Bissaka pocketing a near 1000 per cent increase after signing a five-year deal worth £80,000 per week.

Liverpool have likewise acquired youth with the signing of 17-year-old Sepp van den Berg, while Manchester City edge closer to triggering the £62.5m release clause of relatively unproven Spanish starlet Rodri from Atletico Madrid.

Replies - Newest Posts First (Show In Chronological Order)

diehardhammer 8:49 Mon Jul 1
Re: Change to FFP rules
El Scorchio 7:22 Mon Jul 1

There is no way this benefits West Ham or any club below the champions league for that matter.

Now the top clubs can offer Europe and stupid wages easily with no limit now

El Scorchio 7:22 Mon Jul 1
Re: Change to FFP rules
Or if you look at it the other way (improbable as it may seem) it allows us to do the same to 'bigger' clubs, should we have the money.

Well worth noting, should they sell to someone more inclined to splash some cash.

diehardhammer 5:35 Mon Jul 1
Re: Change to FFP rules
Huffers 5:02 Mon Jul 1

I believe we are more or less both on the same general lines, but my interpretation was that as part of this rule being scrapped……

Any player wanting an increase on 140k a week/£7m a year (i.e hernandez’ wage as an example) maybe through a contract renewal or new signing, the player now know they can get it quite easily without the club worrying if they can give the deal with the old rule in place.

Essentially this absolutely shafts west ham regardless IMO – before we paid silly money to get players over other clubs (i.e Hernandez again) now that very slight advantage is being taken away if other teams can pay over the odds with no worry of that rule anymore.

El Scorchio 5:29 Mon Jul 1
Re: Change to FFP rules
This is good news, assuming the owners don't suddenly come up with another excuse not to shell out

Alex V 5:23 Mon Jul 1
Re: Change to FFP rules
Agreed, it probably means higher wages in some cases, but possibly lower transfer fees. Given how badly some clubs get run, there'll be a risk of more casualties with the training wheels taken off wage bills.

The plus is the freedom clubs now have, less bureaucracy around all that, and that any club given the right success and structure can challenge for the top without the rules basically making that impossible. Great news for a potentially ambitious investor/buyer of West Ham, for example.

Jaan Kenbrovin 5:16 Mon Jul 1
Re: Change to FFP rules
All this will do is edge up the average wage further and put even more financial burden on clubs that get relegated.

Perfect for Man City though.

J.Riddle 5:14 Mon Jul 1
Re: Change to FFP rules
but we are losing £45m a year according to
Whetstone so will make no difference.

rumford 5:12 Mon Jul 1
Re: Change to FFP rules
johnson
The initial deal for the stadium was we own it outright and presumably all revenue generated.This changed following the threat of judicial review .I'm not not defending the owners just stating the facts.May be they should have dropped the bid once the original deal was scuppered

Alex V 5:09 Mon Jul 1
Re: Change to FFP rules
Correct, Huffers.

Re the comments about commercial deals, I think the implications of the change really has nothing to do with that, which was always a nebulous part of the rules which I'm not sure clubs ever actually used anyway.

The big change is simply that, barring the club getting into a financial mess (the other part of FFP), we can pay who we want whatever we want with much more freedom. There is no longer an artificial limit to the club competing aggressively with top teams on wages.

Huffers 5:02 Mon Jul 1
Re: Change to FFP rules
diehardhammer 2:30 Mon Jul 1
Re: Change to FFP rules

I think you're reading it different to me. Not saying you're wrong - maybe I am...but I understand it as follows.

If our current wage bill was 100m and we increased to 108m we would've had to have found an extra 1m through new deals.

I don't think it is specific to a player who earns 7m as an individual.

Johnson 5:00 Mon Jul 1
Re: Change to FFP rules
rumford 4:20 Mon Jul 1

Why are we blaming Levy for our board's inability to negotiate a better share of commercial deals?

Facts are sponsors aren't interested in a) us and b) the shit stadium we rent.

Our own board are solely culpable for this, Sullivan ALWAYS wanted to rent the stadium, it would have been a hundred times worse had he bought it so Levy should probably be thanked as the government have invested more in the stadium than our clowns were ever going to.

rumford 4:20 Mon Jul 1
Re: Change to FFP rules
Why will this help us as we only get a small percentage of any commercial deals thanks to Levy and co.

RBshorty 3:18 Mon Jul 1
Re: Change to FFP rules
Yeah. This is huge alright. Huge for the SPIVS. Pellegrini ain’t going to get more money. I would hold back on any hope. This is West Ham.!

diehardhammer 2:30 Mon Jul 1
Re: Change to FFP rules
The STCC meant that any 12-month increase in player wages of above £7m had to be funded by new commercial deals.


Just means any new signings or contract renewals have the option of asking for stupid wages. the club doesn't have to oblige of course.

To put that into perspective only hernadez earns over £7m at west ham and he'll be out the door soon

scott_d 2:29 Mon Jul 1
Re: Change to FFP rules
"However, this has now been dropped, meaning clubs have more room for manoeuvre when it comes to agreeing wage deals with players."

Not entirely convinced this is a new thing, especially when we look to negotiate any deal for Maxi Gomez? We can't use FFP as an excuse and he can demand what he wants.

Iron Duke 2:17 Mon Jul 1
Re: Change to FFP rules
So players can earn even more money?

yippee.

diehardhammer 2:14 Mon Jul 1
Re: Change to FFP rules
As of July 1, an adjustment to the ruling system has increased the scope for clubs to buy players.

As part of the transfer window, clubs have been governed and somewhat limited by Short Term Cost Control (STCC), which was brought into play in 2013.

The STCC meant that any 12-month increase in player wages of above £7m had to be funded by new commercial deals.

However, this has now been dropped, meaning clubs have more room for manoeuvre when it comes to agreeing wage deals with players.

diehardhammer 2:11 Mon Jul 1
Re: Change to FFP rules
can people please read the article its only the rules about wages being scrapped.

FFP is still in place.

Iron Duke 2:10 Mon Jul 1
Re: Change to FFP rules
I thought FFP was supposed to safeguard clubs against spending beyond their means. I suppose this is only useful if we now get taken over by multi-billionaires.

Eerie Descent 2:09 Mon Jul 1
Re: Change to FFP rules
Alex V 2:04 Mon Jul 1

In your opinion? It's there in black and white, you wally.

diehardhammer 2:07 Mon Jul 1
Re: Change to FFP rules
means fuck all really for west ham

we already pay silly wages for players

Page 1 - Next




Copyright 2006 WHO.NET | Powered by: