Yeah their losses would be huge, but so what they have the money there to fund it. I totally get that things need to change, a fairer system and bring down costs but this isn't going to do anything other than make sure Manu Barca and Real Madrid are always at the top of the league.
Surely you would rather see a more competitve league than that, where everyone worked to the same transfer and wage budget. So the teams with the best manager can build a team rather than have it ripped apart every transfer window?
I would also make players that came through the youth system for 4 years or from a lower league exempt from any totting up to encourage teams to bring through players.
I know it's a dream world I live in where one year Sunderland could create a good squad with wage and transfer parity and three years down the line it could be someone else.
I just don't see the benefit of keeping the rich club at the top all the time.
So a club in debt and in financially a much worst state should make way for a team that is funded? What about Liverpool, they lost 90m? Should Spurs have their place?
City have spent a small fortune in the last few years on players, and even Jose mentioned in Jan that they had to balance the books with the Mata sale before buying Saleh ( sp?) because of their recent spending. Utd are only in the position they are in this summer because for the last three or four seasons they havent spent the earth on getting new players.
Look at City ' s / Chelsea' s results this season ( even after all that spending), its not anywhere near as clear cut as Spain or Germany - quite a few bad / surprising results in there ( even before thinking about the financial parity of any two sides).
It could also be argued that handing Everton £70-80m. (or ~ 60m difference) for their fine 5th place will make a much bigger change for the better to their finances than adding the same amount to City's books for the difference in winnings between 12/13 and 13/14.
So you want Rooney' s wages to be exempt , thank you very much
( inside our boarders, it shouldnt matter that a player who grown up / trained im the UK has changed UK clubs to be counted for this kind of rule). In all fairness though from a sqaud size point of view they will be exempt below 21 years of age - but there is still a big disparity between the quality of any given Epl game and that of any given U18/U21 game which doesnt help the flow of younsters into the senior game. Umtil any player starts getting regular appearances at the senior level financially they are going to be invisible simply because these players will be on peanuts comparatively anyway.
For right or wrong 1/2 the league is more concerned about actually staying in the league year on year ( and direct parity between themselves) rather than breaking the top four / five monopoly. When the points gap between 11th/12th and relegation is the same as 4 th/5 th and 7 th ( which I dont believe is that different from last few years), this isnt going to change.
Liverpool came out in profit then over the year if they lost £90m but won ~£100m for coming 2nd and having a few more live games. Good for them.
Are there any likely individuals that have a comparative wealth like Jack walker at Blackburn nowadays ( surely £25M on players in the early 90's must be like 200-300m now, or £5m for an individual player compared to £40m now)?
If someone comes in and buys Villa for example, surely its financially prudent to build the brand slowly again consistantly challanging the top 10, and trying for long cup runs while encouraging better commercial deals over the years than doing a Leeds and risking everything on one or two seasons of immense spending ( and possibly seeing it all go down the pan thanks to one or two bad injuries)
The world is a different place to the early 90's, I can see both sides but imo these days it just isnt realistic ( even without ffp) to expect a Blackburn to happen ( it wasnt exactly a regular occurance before this)
)
