The 20 Premier League clubs have agreed, in principle, to introduce radical new cost controls.

There are two main proposals on the table - a break-even rule and a cap on the amount clubs can increase their wage bills by each season.

Club chief executives have now been asked to produce detailed plans for exactly how these proposals will work.

These rules would mark a major change for the clubs, which made cumulative losses of £361m in 2010-11.

Champions Manchester City, for example, made a £97.9m loss in their latest set of results, which were revealed last Friday.

City and Fulham are the only clubs opposed to any spending controls, BBC Sport understands. However, any new Premier League rule requires the approval of only 14 of the 20 clubs in order to be introduced.

With the Premier League's new three-year television deals expected to break through the £5bn barrier from 2013, momentum is growing to find a way of preventing the majority of that cash going straight to players and agents.

There have now been six meetings of top-flight chairmen where cost controls have been discussed without any concrete decisions being made.

The next meeting will be on 6 February.

Gotta wonder why Chelsea didn't oppose the proposal.

Sounds promising.

Has this been properly thought through because does it mean current low wage teams like West Brom will not be able to match high payers like Man City due to the cap so they have to shop in the bargain basement even if they have money.
This favours Chelsea and Man City over everyone else unless there is a fixed wage cap

You would assume that if one part is respected, the second part falls into place.

Bold Tone wrote:

Has this been properly thought through because does it mean current low wage teams like West Brom will not be able to match high payers like Man City due to the cap so they have to shop in the bargain basement even if they have money.

They already do, though. Where would they get the money from to up their wage bill that much anyway? Investors? The idea is to limit the influence of those people.

Chelsea were broke and heading nowhere before the Ruskie came along, so it is not inconceivable that another one could come along and buy West Ham or god forbid Tottsc*m for example.

And exactly why were Chelsea broke and on the verge of bankruptcy before Abramovich took over?

I don't see why it should matter whether it's West Bromwich or Chelsea or a two-bob club like Manchester City we're talking about. The idea is to prevent sugar daddies altogether, not just to forbid the top clubs to make use of them.

I am not in favour of sugar daddies but was just making the point that this favours the clubs that already have them in place. This is because others will never ever be able to match the wages they offer to players. Good news is currently there are only 2 of them plus maybe manu and they cannot buy all the best players as good players do not want to sit on the bench

Expected. Equally expected that Man City will hire the best lawyers available to fight it. They want the most expensive lawyers so they can go on buying the PL title.

On what grounds? This isn't the same as UEFA's fair play regulation which is a lot more intrusive.

That the break even rule would prevent them from buying the title each year? They'll think if something.

Bold Tone wrote:

I am not in favour of sugar daddies but was just making the point that this favours the clubs that already have them in place. This is because others will never ever be able to match the wages they offer to players.

But how are they going to break even if they keep a wage bill that is £150 million bigger than their annual income?

£150 million will generate ingenious thinking to solve that problem.
Chelski produced some "abramovich" accounting that says they made a profit last season so no doubt the etihad rentboys will produce their own version as well

Klaus wrote:

Gotta wonder why Chelsea didn't oppose the proposal.

Put yourself in their shoes. It's probably because City are outspending them by a long margin and are the current champions.

Bold Tone wrote:

£150 million will generate ingenious thinking to solve that problem.
Chelski produced some "abramovich" accounting that says they made a profit last season so no doubt the etihad rentboys will produce their own version as well

Surely ingenious accounting by the high rollers to partially work around the restrictions is still far better (from an Arsenal perspective) than nothing at all?

In the current PL environment, an enforced break-even rule means we naturally gravitate to second position on the grid at the start of each season. A partially enforced rule still helps us.

That's true and i am actually on the same side as you guys hoping it works

Burnwinter wrote:
Klaus wrote:

Gotta wonder why Chelsea didn't oppose the proposal.

Put yourself in their shoes. It's probably because City are outspending them by a long margin and are the current champions.

That's actually a pretty good point. But still. What if they lose Champions League and their stature as a big club as a consequence?

It's a good question.

But how long can they live with their aspirations maintained by the Russian cash life-support machine?

Having won multiple league titles, multiple FA Cups, and the CL, with their champion players in universal decline, I think they're on the verge of a new phase.

this doesnt favour anyone except the owners. premier league is becoming more american by the day.

what does the footballers association have to say about this? i'm not familiar with uk laws, but i'd think this is arguably a violation of wage and possibly antitrust laws.

Great! It'll stop those bullies of Norwich Swansea and Bradford using their financial muscle to steam roll us.