You’re missing the point. The PL sustainable rules are based on a threshold for losses allowed. Losses are a function of revenue. If the bigger clubs will get a higher share of that revenue, that just gives them an even greater advantage over the smaller clubs.
The most realistic way for smaller clubs to compete would be to spend more in the short term so they can buy better players. That way they can get a share of more TV money and European Football.
But, if by doing that they break the rules, then they don’t have the ability to do so and the status quo remains with the exception of the occcasional Leicester City like fluke season.
Whilst I don’t disagree with your point that there was a string of poor decision making regarding transfers, that’s not the reason we’re in this mess. We’re building a new stadium and one of the main investors had to be ousted (Russia/Ukraine war, you can suss it out).
This, on top of an already poor financial situation, thanks to our wonderful owner Fahrad Moshiri, are what led to the current situation.
Stadium work doesn’t really count towards FFP and Usmanov was funneling money through the stadium, like that bogus fee given to have first rejection on naming rights.
You are half right (and also half wrong 😬) about the stadium work. The PL changed the rules halfway through the period Everton were assessed for. One year they were allowed to set aside the interest payments on loans for the new stadium but the next year they weren’t allowed to set these aside. The PL could at least try to keep their rules consistent.
This just means that more teams will inevitably end up in Evertons situation unable to compete. This is bad news for all but top 6. Rigged
Everton situation was not caused by the lack of money but the extremely wasteful use of money on poor transfers.
Everton spent less than Man City, Chelsea, Man U, Arsenal, Liverpool, Spurs and probably some others. It’s caused by both.
That’s not what the PL’ panel said in their report.
You’re missing the point. The PL sustainable rules are based on a threshold for losses allowed. Losses are a function of revenue. If the bigger clubs will get a higher share of that revenue, that just gives them an even greater advantage over the smaller clubs.
The most realistic way for smaller clubs to compete would be to spend more in the short term so they can buy better players. That way they can get a share of more TV money and European Football.
But, if by doing that they break the rules, then they don’t have the ability to do so and the status quo remains with the exception of the occcasional Leicester City like fluke season.
Whilst I don’t disagree with your point that there was a string of poor decision making regarding transfers, that’s not the reason we’re in this mess. We’re building a new stadium and one of the main investors had to be ousted (Russia/Ukraine war, you can suss it out). This, on top of an already poor financial situation, thanks to our wonderful owner Fahrad Moshiri, are what led to the current situation.
Stadium work doesn’t really count towards FFP and Usmanov was funneling money through the stadium, like that bogus fee given to have first rejection on naming rights.
You are half right (and also half wrong 😬) about the stadium work. The PL changed the rules halfway through the period Everton were assessed for. One year they were allowed to set aside the interest payments on loans for the new stadium but the next year they weren’t allowed to set these aside. The PL could at least try to keep their rules consistent.
And if they had more money the money they wasted would not matter as much …
Someone will be kicked out shortly. They are deciding who over the next few seasons
I think it would’ve been spurs if Ange wasn’t a wizard.
How exactly?