Seems fair to me. We should ultimately benefit as our turnover will be higher than many clubs allowing us to spend more whilst protecting the future of our club by not allowing the owners to rack up debts.

The only concern is it puts our current owners off and they pull out!

Merseyside, I can't see how this will beifit us, this rule is to curb clubs like us, we are about £50 mill in debt, running at an operating loss and we are intending to signing more new players in the summer.

I think this is a good step to protect football but may cause a bigger gap between Premier and the rest.
Hopefully old fox the small print will deal with existing debt / loans.
It should assist our owners in not spending / gambling cash to get us success as Mersey states.

Not sure if it will help the fans wallet as now even more so being the major revenue source.. Increased tickets prices ring any bells.
Especially my sons student Season ticket 100% increase..

Mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, relegated clubs with parachute payments are potentially at a huge advantage over the clubs who haven't been in the Premiership recently.

On the other hand, do we really want our owners to be allowed to continually overspend until one day we find we are a basket case like Portsmouth? These rules at least put a ceiling on the rate at which you can rack up debt.

Fatfox - look at the two promoted teams (assuming Southampton) spent this year vs us and the parachute teams.

With our turnover, we'd be able to invest steadily, whereas parachute payments means that teams would have to gamble and restructure massively if they failed.

Ultimately, I think it will help us in te medium to long term. It's teams like Bolton, Blackburn and Wigan that need to worry as if they fall from the Prem, they would struggle to compete financially with the Leicester's, Leeds and Derbys of the division.

In the short term if course we lose the advantage of our owners wantingto splash the cash.

I understand 2 clubs in the championship voted against this, would one of those clubs be us?

And is there loopholes such as King Power sponsorship not being classed as owner investment?

Plus I assume capital raised from player sales can be spent in addition to the capped investment.

Although it means well, the biggest problem with FFP is that it will just create a hierarchy of teams and it'll be almost impossible for teams to progress beyond a certain stage.

As for us, it'll be interesting to see the accounts when they next come out. Firstly to see how much the spending over the summer will have increased our losses but more importantly, how much turnover has increased due to all the King Power advertising. We should be alright given we've got until 2014-15 until we have to decrease our losses and that we now have a manager who will not spend over the top amounts and owners who will have learnt the value of efficient spending in the transfer market.

In the long term, it will stop clubs particularly smaller ones going out of business.

Some fans of clubs seem to have the impression though that this is about making it 'fair' and even across the board with regard to how much clubs have to spend; you hear things like - 'good, this will mean clubs with rich owners will not be able to spend more than us now..'

I don't think this is what the scheme is about and within football, we need bigger/richer clubs spending more money than smaller ones; this is Economy.

What it will do is stop owners/clubs, particularly those who build up debt through external loans which they don't have the capital to cover or intent to ever repay, from accumulating long-term financial burdens - i.e. ridiculous salaries, which I have very happy about.

However, I think there is a possibility though it will just make it even more difficult to track legitimate long-term investment in to a club and assess how financially stable they are.

As mentioned, Leicester for example, can just have 'external investment/raised capital' through King Power. 'This won't be alllowed'? - King Power will pay Thai Airways a large amount of money for advertisement on their aircraft; Thai Airways will pay Leicester City Football Club a large amount for advertisement in the stadium. 'This won't be allowed?..' - King Power invest in shares/advertisement in another company, who invest in Thai Airways who invest in Leicester City. For decades, big and successful companies have been bending (sometimes outmoded) rules created by more intelligent bodies that FIFA.

We have a debt and the possibility of owners leaving to worry about, with the only real goal to permanently resolve both; being promotion. But ultimately, I don't think either of these possible issues or resolution will be affected much by any new financial laws at the moment.

This is rediculous, these clubs are private businesses, there are sanctions there if thay fail ie, portsmouth etc...
having the wonderful football authorities (brilliantly run themselves NOT) dictating how each of 72 private businesses should be run is a total joke...its communism by another name and will lead to ten times MORE dodgy stuff going on to get around these stupid rules..brainless..we should be trying to level up, not level down...I wouldn't allow the football league or FA run a whelk stall... pathetic..

john fallen - The whole point of this is that it's about time football clubs were stopped from being run as any other private business. They almost have to be given their own category in the marketplace. It's blatantly not "communism by another name" as it still rewards the best functioning operations and genuine success and creativity. It's more trying to impose the kind of regulations that capitalism should have and indeed needs to function properly (lest we end up in a world economic crash or something).

The problem with FFP is that it's aimed solely at the football league when the powers that be should be looking at ways of implementing it worldwide, securing the future and stability of football for all of us.

"its communism by another name"...

Fifa and Blatter - a repressive structure claiming to be working on behalf of the working class and the masses; lead by a racist, sexist autocrat?....yeah sounds about right.

Ultimately it's aim is a neo-capitalist style approach, but unfortunately it comes from a place where narcissism and deceit is rife.

Dungeon," its time football clubs were stopped from being run as any other private business".. sorry mate..thats cloud cuckoo land im afraid..once "the powers that be " stick their moronic noses into any business and want to dictate, your heading for big trouble.. im sure these rules were brought in with the best intentions... but as the saying goes, the road to hell is paved with the best intentions....trying to regulate this massive business to this extent will not work...like the football league and FA they are half baked...IMO... ref. 5 subs rule ...joke..

"5 subs rule ...joke.."

To be fair, this was a democratic vote amongst the applicable football clubs., as opposed to a fixed law imposed by the FA.

john fallen - Well then football clubs will keep going to the wall and fans will keep losing their teams. To me, this is not acceptable and it is being caused by businesses being run badly. These regulations are designed to stop this from happening.

What exact problems do you see happening here?

don't make it the right decision, taken for the right reasons does it? look at the rugby union, brought in a wage cap,(for good intentions),now english teams hardly ever feature in the heineken cup latter stages..top players moving abroad... ditto for our leagues..in football , its a big world out there..players will seek more elsewhere ,standards will fall....you can't buck the market....who said that?

I think the best way forward would be if there was no cap on how much a owner could invest (as mentioned above, clubs will find ways around it anyway), as long as the club was turning over enough to cover players' wages and other long-term debts/commitments.

How practical and manageable this is, is another matter.

I also think the rule with regard to investment from chairpeople/owners is probably only in relation to monies being directly available for transfers. I can't believe that FIFA would stop investment over £6m in to a club next season if it was being put towards youth development/training facilities, etc - if they are then I would suggest this is an awful decision.

dungeon ,mate, we used to have a cinema ,people used to say" must keep it open we need one"...then no bleeder went...who should prop it up the council? same with local shops ...everbody wants to keep them, then nobody shops in them.. if the competition has to be rigged to prop up the weak it won't work..if some of these clubs are so loved the local people should support them...being in debt is not always bad, its the ability to service the debt that counts ..that decision is best taken by the people running the business not a committee vote... or people with alterior motives..

Local shops, cinemas etc. is a different argument though. These aren't places that are failing due to overextending themselves, these are places that are closing due to lack of footfall and competition that is too strong. True football fans aren't going to start going and supporting Nottingham Forest if they could get a better deal there. It'll still be up to the club to attract people in, to fill their stadiums, to sell merchandise, etc. This is so that we won't see clubs disappearing into financial black holes the way Portsmouth have. Their fans are having to live with what's happened there and there's nothing they could do about it - by the time the money's been spent and the intentions are clear, it's already too late.

The only place I would agree with you is in regard to you talking about the Premiership in rugby and how talent would go elsewhere if they could be paid more than they could in our the football Premiership. This is why we need worldwide action to be taken to stop any one country or league gaining an advantage. However, with more and more financial woes inflicting clubs across the football league, this is better than leaving things as they are.

In theory I think this is a good idea, and ultimately the finances of football clubs do need to be brought into check. The days of racking up huge amounts of debt with no way to pay it back has to end as the long term troubles have to outweigh the short term benefits (Portsmouth a prime example - FA Cup winners one minute, League One the next)

However, I do share some of the concerns raised, in particular with regards the potential difference between clubs that are relegated from the PL and everyone else in the league. The way that the PP payments have altered from 2 to 4 years is ludicrous - Now any club could go up, not win a single match, and be guaranteed 4 years of £10m payments. That cannot be right! 2 years of parachute money is fine, no qualms over that, and it gives responsible clubs ample time to weed out the players that are costing them a fortune. 4 years will just widen the gap between recently relegated PL teams and the rest of the league. Personally I'd have it back to 2 years, with a condition that you can only receive PP if you reach a certain points tally in the PL (25 for example).

If this rule isn't implemented properly, we risk having a three tier pyramid in the Championship; first tier with recently relegated ex PL teams on huge PP (Wolves, West Ham, Birmingham), second tier with bigger clubs who haven't had recent PL experience but have big match revenues (Leicester, Leeds, Forest) and a third tier of those who have no PL experience and no big revenue (Barnsley, Peterborough, Coventry). The Championship is well regarded as being the most equal league in football, I'd hate for that to change.

As mentioned above, we will not be massively penalised by the changes as we have a good match day revenue, so in theory we should be more than able to stand on our own feet. But the downside is the owners will be limited to what they can invest. I hope that this means clubs like ours will attempt more radical, exciting ways to draw in revenue but fear it may result in yet more increases in ticket prices, which will be bad for everyone.

But in short, regardless of these new rules, our situation is simple; we are nearly £60m in debt with assets of perhaps £50m at most, and with no way to service that debt other than achieveing promotion And at the moment we don't have the right dynamics within the club to achieve this, from manager to players to style.

I think its a good thing (although will be bad for Leicester City as a club) to encourage clubs to reduce astronomical wages and transfer fees. I read the other day that Pompey are currently paying Ben Haim £50k per week - under their circumstances, this should never have been allowed.

If only there was a way that a 'maximum wage' could be implemented without losing all premiership / championship players to foreign leagues...

All I will add is this , every action has a reaction..most are unforseen and most will be unintentional..but no good will come of this in the long run, IMO....cos we love the game WE think its special and the outside worlds way of running things does not apply ..you cannot fight progress and the future by legistlating against it...time will tell who is right and who has backed a folly...

Maybe if we did lose all the foreign players our home nation players can get a game/experience and our national team can improve

This is brilliant news for the clubs in championship with very good turnoverswe are maybe you are too so will not damage you too much tbf.just to add my mate started a new job for walkers as heavy goods driver and he says any one who works for walkers gets free tickets for every Leicester game,does that hit your turnover if they are giving away 100's of free tickets every week?

Walkers don't sponsor us though, so would be strange, particularly as this wasn't the case when they did sponsor us.

Walkers is owned by Pepsico and the Walkers section of this company alone has thousands of employees.

I think maybe, we would have heard about this in Leicester somehow and I certainly think our attendances would have risen randomly from whenever this was supposedly implemented (sure he doesn't work for a certain mobile phone company in Derby and support County!?)