Would you like to read more?Register for free to finish this article.Sign up now for the following benefits:Four FREE articles of your choice per monthBreaking news, comment and analysis from industry experts as it happensChoose from our portfolio of email newsletters To access this article REGISTER NOWWould you like print copies, app and digital replica access too? SUBSCRIBE for as little as £5 per week.
The Blues had been viewed as a hardline opponent of financial fair play (FFP), but Press Association Sport understands Chelsea will agree to a system that obliges clubs to break even but allows owners to cover some losses. The thawing of Chelsea’s position should now ensure that both spending control systems are agreed on Thursday. Arsenal, Manchester United, Tottenham and Liverpool will still argue that wealthy owners should not be allowed to underwrite any losses, but in order to push FFP through will have to settle for a compromise, where up to £105million over three years can be covered. Chelsea are set to back both a wage increase cap and a compromise financial fair play deal at Thursday’s showdown meeting of all 20 Premier League chairmen, it can be disclosed. Opponents of FFP argue that the system maintains the status quo and favours the biggest clubs with large stadia and high commercial income. Four clubs – Manchester City, Fulham, West Brom and Aston Villa – are still expected to vote against it. Chelsea’s backing of a compromise, however, should enable the necessary 14 out of the 20 votes to be reached. The wage increase cap may also be watered down – initially Sunderland owner Ellis Short had suggested a maximum 10 per cent increase allowed for player wages. It now looks likely that the cap will only affect those clubs whose total bill is higher than £52m so that promoted sides are not prevented from improving their squads. Furthermore, spending money earned from clubs’ individual sponsorship deals on wages will not be restricted. But some form of wage increase cap will satisfy club owners, who are fearful of the bulk of the income from next season’s bumper new television rights deals – expected to be worth £25m-£30m per club – going straight into the pockets of the players and agents. The Premier League’s expected FFP system would be less restrictive than UEFA’s, which is being brought in from next season and will oblige clubs to break even or face possible exclusion from European competition. Under UEFA’s system, for the first three years owners will be permitted to cover annual losses of up to £12million via equity but that will then be phased out. Arsenal, Manchester United, Tottenham and Liverpool argue that tough FFP measures will maintain the Premier League’s competitiveness and its attraction to a global TV audience, rather than risk a situation developing such as in Spain, where only two clubs dominate the football landscape. Press Association