Fair Play!

[exileinleeds]

Reading were the only PL club to abstain from voting, but a majority of clubs have voted to accept a limit of £105m cumulative losses over 3 years. Clubs whose wage bill exceeds £52m will only be allowed to increase that by £4m per year....
Interestingly they are talking POINTS DEDUCTION for breaches.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/21374699


Seems there is a major shake up in finance having to happen (for fear of legislation)...does this make it easier or harder for Reading to sustain their league status in the medium/long term?

[Royal With Cheese]

I wonder why we obstained?

[Royal Ginger]

It's really not because we're thinking about breaking the rules...

If anything they probably forgot to invite us to the meeting.

[Ian Royal]

I wonder why we obstained?

I think we voted against previous moves because we didn't think they were strong enough. Might be something like that?

[winchester_royal]

This isn't particularly good news for us. We have a chairman willing to invest now, and a pretty small revenue stream. I imagine we abstained because we didn't want to be seen to vote against the proposals whilst also not voting for them.

[The Royal]

Surely with talk of upgrading the stadium and other aspects of the club, we could expect to see some losses. Or does this not count?



Then again it's not like we break the bank on transfers

[Ian Royal]

This isn't particularly good news for us. We have a chairman willing to invest now, and a pretty small revenue stream. I imagine we abstained because we didn't want to be seen to vote against the proposals whilst also not voting for them.

But not willing to just throw money at things. Like we're in any danger of losing £105m over three seasons! If we stay up and lose £30m over three seasons (not including stadium spending which doesn't count) I'll be absolutely flabbergasted.

[adief]

Surely with talk of upgrading the stadium and other aspects of the club, we could expect to see some losses. Or does this not count?



Then again it's not like we break the bank on transfers

Stadium and academy investments are excluded from the loss calculations.

[JamieY26]

this is a pointless rule. All a chairman has to do is sell the naming rights of the stadium to himself for a ridiculous sun, not bother changing it and now you have an infinite revenue stream. If Anton wants to invest silly money there is nothing really stopping him....not that i think he will go silly with the cash any time soon

[Scutterbucketz]

I understand that Reading threw their toys out the pram and refused to vote when their quest for bonus points if you spend fukk all was denied.

[Royal91]

Excuse my ignorance but I am well confused. I thought we would be advocating FFP due to our ever-improving academy and 'The Reading Way'

[Royal Ginger]

Surely with talk of upgrading the stadium and other aspects of the club, we could expect to see some losses. Or does this not count?



Then again it's not like we break the bank on transfers

Stadium and academy investments are excluded from the loss calculations.

And here's why the rules are a waste of time. As long as you're not capping bottom line spends, the gate is left wide open for the crooks in the game will hide money in such investments and pay wages under the table. Overrunning, over-budget developments have been used for money laundering for decades outside of the game. There'll always be ways round any rules, but it's just too easy.

[Scutterbucketz]

Hopefully Antons Dad will sponsor the team shirts for £300 million over 3 years, like Man City's owners have.

[Wimb]

Can see why we've abstained, the rules are pretty flawed and basically sustain the status quo while removing the possibility of another Portsmouth situation embarrassing the Premier League.

Put most of my thoughts down on TTE. http://www.thetilehurstend.com/2013/2/7 ... t-spending

In short, on the one hand, any rules that stop cowboy owners coming in and overspending is a good thing but it's also just closing another tiny door that small clubs had towards breaking in to the top five/six. With these in place you'll hopefully never see another Pompey but at the same time you'll never get a Blackburn (the good version).

[Big Ern]

I wonder why we obstained?

Dare I say it, but maybe Anton thinks we are going to get relegated so couldn't be bothered to vote.

[westendgirl]

Can see why we've abstained, the rules are pretty flawed and basically sustain the status quo while removing the possibility of another Portsmouth situation embarrassing the Premier League.

Put most of my thoughts down on TTE. http://www.thetilehurstend.com/2013/2/7 ... t-spending

In short, on the one hand, any rules that stop cowboy owners coming in and overspending is a good thing but it's also just closing another tiny door that small clubs had towards breaking in to the top five/six. With these in place you'll hopefully never see another Pompey but at the same time you'll never get a Blackburn (the good version).

From what I know of the way RFC work you have got this spot on.

[The Rouge]

I expect Dirkers to wade in here and cast us all to the ground with a grand display of knowledge, words and hyperbole - but essentially if this moves towards spending a percentage of revenue on wages then ultimately it will be hard for us to sustain a Premier League place. As we probably take in the 19th most (Wigan 20th?) - but happy to be corrected. Actually, please please correct me. This and EPPP, EFFF, or whatever it was called must be bad news for us as a Premier League club.

[ZacNaloen]

We voted against the championship rules for not being tough enough, so it doesn't surprise me we abstained from this.

[Stuka]

Just a stab in the dark but it could be Reading abstained because they are a lot less likely to draw an income from sponsorship, commercial deals, and other revenue streams the big clubs have access to. It might be they agree with the principal of the vote, but still see significant flaws that unfairly benefit the big teams, but really I'm just specul8ing.

[Royal Biscuitman]

Surely with talk of upgrading the stadium and other aspects of the club, we could expect to see some losses. Or does this not count?



Then again it's not like we break the bank on transfers

IIRC in Europe ground development is treated as a separate investment.