comment by fridgeboy (U1053)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Carter (U18826)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by fridgeboy (U1053)
posted 17 minutes ago
There's something not quite right about all this. There's a very real possibility that we could get to the end of the season but not know the fate of so many clubs. Forest, Everton and Leicester all have punishments and appeals hanging over them that is destroying fans' right to celebrate.
Ironically, these sustainability rules are unsustainable. It all seems like a good idea until they come crawling on our front lawn. We might think we operate perfectly but they'll find something eventually. They already did with the Defoe signing so there'll be something else.
I know we all think that it suits us but does it? Really? As far as i'm concerned, all this does is lock us in as the 5th or 6th richest club in the league. If Levy did leave and someone else comes in, we won't be able to operate any differently. We'll just sit where we currently are.
Also, this is going to completely destroy the Premier League because it will slow down the financial cogs. We've already seen a slowing down in terms of spending. What this will mean long term is that Madrid and Barca will dominate once again because tv money in Spain is pretty much only given to them. In an age where owner wealth can't be invested, the tv money winner is king. It will kill us domestically.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You and the red tops were the dominant force in driving this sh!t, its a bit rich to start complaining about it now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I can see the benefits in both ways but in its current guise it won't work. All it's doing right now is punishing smaller clubs that want to show a little ambition. I initially thought this might work but I'm not so sure anymore. The Premier League as a whole will unquestionably suffer but this is killing the dream for so many. Unless you're in that top pack, it does feel a bit unfair. I'll be watching to see how City are treated for their 100+ charges because unless the book is thrown at them and they're kicked out of the feckin league, I don't see how this is in anyway 'fair play'. They won't though. They'll get a slap on the wrist. Their lawyers will make sure of that. The whole thing stinks.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Its a waiting game, we should know in a year or two
Yeah I agree though it doesn't work and we can all se it now, should be debt based, if owners want to pump money in let them. Otherwise as you said it will only be the same teams at the top table, thats not fair on the rest.
comment by fridgeboy (U1053)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by Bats Uncensored (U18355)
posted 4 minutes ago
Nothing wrong with forcing clubs to spend within their means. If these points deductions were dished out 20 years ago, oligarchs and Arab princes would have thought twice about ruining football
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The main issue with it is that on the face of it, spending within your means is how all businesses SHOULD operate, however football can't be viewed in the same way. For instance, investment in a business outside football comes with a guarantee of growth. If you pay for a service, you'll see a real benefit to that investment. In football those same guarantees don't exist. You can sign a player with all the data in the world but there's no guarantee it will work out, and there's no refund or insurance on that purchase for a 'shoddy job' as there is in business. So even if you operate conservatively, you're only ever one bad signing away from being up the shiiiitter. It basically means that not only do you have to operate within your means, you have to allow for poor judgement and signings that just don't come off and that's never ever going to work out if wages remain as they are. Sustainability rules as they currently stand do not align with the inflated market and astronomical wages. It's impossible to sustain.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lol dafuq are you talking about? Guarantee of growth? I would love to know an example of this in the real world. Every decision a business makes entails a substantial risk. Far greater a risk than any Premier League clubs who can just go to the bank for infinite loans and post 9 figure annual losses without flinching.
I don’t think you understand how much leeway these clubs have been given. If normal businesses were posting losses at a similar rate to PL clubs, they would end up liquidated and their directs thrown away in prison
If you think the Premier league rules are strict then look at UEFA’s, the game is changing - for the better in my opinion.
Without these rules we would have Newcastle and Villa dumping schitt loads of cash in and distorting things even more. Newcastles owners have more money than the rest of the premier league combined - that includes Man City’s owners, it would be farcical as they would just keep buying until they won everything - like City did and Chelsea before them.
Where does that leave the other Clubs? At least this way we have the likes of Liverpool and Arsena able to compete with City. Newcastle have an injury crisis and are languishing mid table, Chelsea have mental owners who know faaaack all about football. Villa are doing well but they will be in a tough spot if they don’t make CL. This is the way it should be. Liverpool will likely be more beatable next year. This is healthy. If they ever properly get to grips with City then the competition will be fantastic
comment by Striketeam7 - There used to be a football club over there (U18109)
posted 10 minutes ago
If you think the Premier league rules are strict then look at UEFA’s, the game is changing - for the better in my opinion.
Without these rules we would have Newcastle and Villa dumping schitt loads of cash in and distorting things even more. Newcastles owners have more money than the rest of the premier league combined - that includes Man City’s owners, it would be farcical as they would just keep buying until they won everything - like City did and Chelsea before them.
Where does that leave the other Clubs? At least this way we have the likes of Liverpool and Arsena able to compete with City. Newcastle have an injury crisis and are languishing mid table, Chelsea have mental owners who know faaaack all about football. Villa are doing well but they will be in a tough spot if they don’t make CL. This is the way it should be. Liverpool will likely be more beatable next year. This is healthy. If they ever properly get to grips with City then the competition will be fantastic
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I can see both sides of this debate because you're right, it's not sustainable. That said, locking everyone in to their current revenue streams keeps the status quo.
I think Gary Neville had the right idea. He said that spending should be capped at the same level as the revenue generated by the top club in the league. That keeps competition alive and stops anyone from running away with it. So essentially City would be hamstrung by ffp but others wouldn't be quite so much. Think of catch up logic on driving games. It's a similar thing.
comment by fridgeboy (U1053)
posted 19 minutes ago
comment by Striketeam7 - There used to be a football club over there (U18109)
posted 10 minutes ago
If you think the Premier league rules are strict then look at UEFA’s, the game is changing - for the better in my opinion.
Without these rules we would have Newcastle and Villa dumping schitt loads of cash in and distorting things even more. Newcastles owners have more money than the rest of the premier league combined - that includes Man City’s owners, it would be farcical as they would just keep buying until they won everything - like City did and Chelsea before them.
Where does that leave the other Clubs? At least this way we have the likes of Liverpool and Arsena able to compete with City. Newcastle have an injury crisis and are languishing mid table, Chelsea have mental owners who know faaaack all about football. Villa are doing well but they will be in a tough spot if they don’t make CL. This is the way it should be. Liverpool will likely be more beatable next year. This is healthy. If they ever properly get to grips with City then the competition will be fantastic
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I can see both sides of this debate because you're right, it's not sustainable. That said, locking everyone in to their current revenue streams keeps the status quo.
I think Gary Neville had the right idea. He said that spending should be capped at the same level as the revenue generated by the top club in the league. That keeps competition alive and stops anyone from running away with it. So essentially City would be hamstrung by ffp but others wouldn't be quite so much. Think of catch up logic on driving games. It's a similar thing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It means clubs have to be more smart commercially moving forward. Top managers will be worth their weight in gold. Also mid sized clubs can still pull shrewd moves in the transfer market to increase their revenues like Brighton. If it wasn’t for the Newcastles and Villas, Brighton would’ve fared better over the past season or two in the league. So better regulation is better overall for the game.
Woolwich must be close with their huge spending
comment by ●Billy The Spur● LEVY OUT- ENIC OUT! (U3924)
posted 23 minutes ago
Woolwich must be close with their huge spending
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Given that we are looking to spend a significant fee on a marquee forward I'd say we are ok and we have a number of marketable assets we can sell ie Smith-Rowe, Nketiah, Tierney, Lokonga, Nelson etc so I'd predict another fairly good summer to improve our squad even further.
comment by BelfastSpur (U15068)
posted 3 hours, 41 minutes ago
comment by fridgeboy (U1053)
posted 19 minutes ago
comment by Striketeam7 - There used to be a football club over there (U18109)
posted 10 minutes ago
If you think the Premier league rules are strict then look at UEFA’s, the game is changing - for the better in my opinion.
Without these rules we would have Newcastle and Villa dumping schitt loads of cash in and distorting things even more. Newcastles owners have more money than the rest of the premier league combined - that includes Man City’s owners, it would be farcical as they would just keep buying until they won everything - like City did and Chelsea before them.
Where does that leave the other Clubs? At least this way we have the likes of Liverpool and Arsena able to compete with City. Newcastle have an injury crisis and are languishing mid table, Chelsea have mental owners who know faaaack all about football. Villa are doing well but they will be in a tough spot if they don’t make CL. This is the way it should be. Liverpool will likely be more beatable next year. This is healthy. If they ever properly get to grips with City then the competition will be fantastic
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I can see both sides of this debate because you're right, it's not sustainable. That said, locking everyone in to their current revenue streams keeps the status quo.
I think Gary Neville had the right idea. He said that spending should be capped at the same level as the revenue generated by the top club in the league. That keeps competition alive and stops anyone from running away with it. So essentially City would be hamstrung by ffp but others wouldn't be quite so much. Think of catch up logic on driving games. It's a similar thing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It means clubs have to be more smart commercially moving forward. Top managers will be worth their weight in gold. Also mid sized clubs can still pull shrewd moves in the transfer market to increase their revenues like Brighton. If it wasn’t for the Newcastles and Villas, Brighton would’ve fared better over the past season or two in the league. So better regulation is better overall for the game.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Agreed. It also encourages clubs to produce their own talent so the national team will benefit in the long run.
Let's not forget clubs can lose £100m over a three year rolling period. That's alot of money.
All this chatter is all well and good, BUT..........
does anyone know if Spurs may be in violation of PSR? .....
does anyone know if Spurs may be in violation of PSR?
---
Yeah we're not even close. Years of penny pinching and all the lovely revenue from the new stadium means we're fine
comment by Bãleș left boot (U22081)
posted 17 minutes ago
does anyone know if Spurs may be in violation of PSR?
---
Yeah we're not even close. Years of penny pinching and all the lovely revenue from the new stadium means we're fine
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So glad to hear that,...BUT... wasn't the stadium financed with very very large loans?
Wouldn't that factor into financial analyses for PSR?
Such loans would have interest payments, for example.
Gotta say,....having just read up a bit....and I mean there's a hell of a lot out there...on FFP and PSR...I have no idea in hell as to what expenditures are counted and what are not counted among the finances of a club's operations.
Can anyone clue me in?
And I can well understand why any club accused of violating PSR would have a damned good legal case against the FA, and .......would those legal fees be counted as expenditures in calculating PSR?
"Leicester in HUGE trouble"??
I'd say the FA could be in huge trouble.
If I was a club owner, I'd tie the FA up in court over this for a generation.
Anyone with the lightest interest in PSR would do well to read this.....
https://theathletic.com/5205988/2024/01/17/psr-premier-league-105m/
YUP, the rules are "about to change".
And I can damned well see why.
But the question is....change to WHAT?
I quote just one paragraph.....
"“The Premier League, with the EFL, is considering moving away from the PSR to a squad cost ratio mechanism. This would replace PSR in the future. PSR will be around this season and next as a bare minimum and may even be kept alongside it. I don’t know. All those decisions are yet to be made.”
You bet any club punished under the existing rules may have a damned good legal case the moment the rules change.
Any of you football fans are lawyers?....Here's a career in the making for you all!
And for those who think WE are safe....
"In their representations to the Premier League, Everton accepted they had exceeded the PSR threshold but cited the cost of interest on loans taken out for the development of their new Bramley-Moore Dock stadium, COVID-19 costs, and the impact of lost sponsorship revenue when oligarch Alisher Usmanov — an ally of their then-owner Farhad Moshiri — was sanctioned following Russia's 2022 invasion of Ukraine."
YES, Everton had to take in the interest payments on loans for their stadium upgrade.
This PSR stuff is so damned complex...the league may have been stupid to get into it.
Now, Fair Play IS a thing that should be legislated. But HOW is the question?
comment by Spurtle (U1608)
posted 11 hours, 59 minutes ago
comment by PhilspursFGR (U3278)
posted 4 minutes ago
Spurs signed Everton's best player at the time, Richarlison. Shortly after, Everton docked points.
Spurs signed Forests best player at the time, Johnson. Shortly after, Forest docked points.
Spurs signed Leicester's best player at the time, Maddison. Shortly after, Leicester docked points.
Who else can we ruin?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We should go all in for Gallagher now. Pay whatever it takes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
comment by Bill Nick: pop star (U23088)
posted 33 minutes ago
comment by Spurtle (U1608)
posted 11 hours, 59 minutes ago
comment by PhilspursFGR (U3278)
posted 4 minutes ago
Spurs signed Everton's best player at the time, Richarlison. Shortly after, Everton docked points.
Spurs signed Forests best player at the time, Johnson. Shortly after, Forest docked points.
Spurs signed Leicester's best player at the time, Maddison. Shortly after, Leicester docked points.
Who else can we ruin?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We should go all in for Gallagher now. Pay whatever it takes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Whose is going to laugh last?
Them or Us? .....
Leicester City: Championship club start legal proceedings against Premier League and EFL over alleged spending breaches
As I predicted above, based upon my limited understanding of PCR...here it is guys...the lawyers will always win...they make the money out of these legal wranglings...
https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/68635985
…..and still $purs are miles away from winning the PL .
Bigger clubs with the most money win most things. It was ever thus.
These rules do not prevent clubs joining the top table , they just mean that it has to be done in a sustainable way.
The rules allow some losses and investment in infrastructure to grow revenues, but this takes time and good decision making.
They just prevent you from spending £1bn on players, having massive unaffordable wage bills in the hope that you succeed and in the end, you become financially viable.
Look at Everton. Even without their FFP issues they spent +£0.5bn and got worse to the point that they're nearly relegated and are still looking for new investors. If they had gone down, God knows what mess theyd be in now.
City are the extreme example BUT they are very well structured and run. In a ruleless world not all clubs would be so well run as that, there'd be plenty of Everton type owners making a mess of things.
The rules are for the food of all because for every club that might benefit from massive spending and become a powerhouse, there would be clubs going the other and potentially into oblivion.
Sign in if you want to comment
Leicester City In HUGE Trouble.
Page 2 of 3
posted on 22/3/24
comment by fridgeboy (U1053)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Carter (U18826)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by fridgeboy (U1053)
posted 17 minutes ago
There's something not quite right about all this. There's a very real possibility that we could get to the end of the season but not know the fate of so many clubs. Forest, Everton and Leicester all have punishments and appeals hanging over them that is destroying fans' right to celebrate.
Ironically, these sustainability rules are unsustainable. It all seems like a good idea until they come crawling on our front lawn. We might think we operate perfectly but they'll find something eventually. They already did with the Defoe signing so there'll be something else.
I know we all think that it suits us but does it? Really? As far as i'm concerned, all this does is lock us in as the 5th or 6th richest club in the league. If Levy did leave and someone else comes in, we won't be able to operate any differently. We'll just sit where we currently are.
Also, this is going to completely destroy the Premier League because it will slow down the financial cogs. We've already seen a slowing down in terms of spending. What this will mean long term is that Madrid and Barca will dominate once again because tv money in Spain is pretty much only given to them. In an age where owner wealth can't be invested, the tv money winner is king. It will kill us domestically.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You and the red tops were the dominant force in driving this sh!t, its a bit rich to start complaining about it now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I can see the benefits in both ways but in its current guise it won't work. All it's doing right now is punishing smaller clubs that want to show a little ambition. I initially thought this might work but I'm not so sure anymore. The Premier League as a whole will unquestionably suffer but this is killing the dream for so many. Unless you're in that top pack, it does feel a bit unfair. I'll be watching to see how City are treated for their 100+ charges because unless the book is thrown at them and they're kicked out of the feckin league, I don't see how this is in anyway 'fair play'. They won't though. They'll get a slap on the wrist. Their lawyers will make sure of that. The whole thing stinks.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Its a waiting game, we should know in a year or two
Yeah I agree though it doesn't work and we can all se it now, should be debt based, if owners want to pump money in let them. Otherwise as you said it will only be the same teams at the top table, thats not fair on the rest.
posted on 22/3/24
comment by fridgeboy (U1053)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by Bats Uncensored (U18355)
posted 4 minutes ago
Nothing wrong with forcing clubs to spend within their means. If these points deductions were dished out 20 years ago, oligarchs and Arab princes would have thought twice about ruining football
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The main issue with it is that on the face of it, spending within your means is how all businesses SHOULD operate, however football can't be viewed in the same way. For instance, investment in a business outside football comes with a guarantee of growth. If you pay for a service, you'll see a real benefit to that investment. In football those same guarantees don't exist. You can sign a player with all the data in the world but there's no guarantee it will work out, and there's no refund or insurance on that purchase for a 'shoddy job' as there is in business. So even if you operate conservatively, you're only ever one bad signing away from being up the shiiiitter. It basically means that not only do you have to operate within your means, you have to allow for poor judgement and signings that just don't come off and that's never ever going to work out if wages remain as they are. Sustainability rules as they currently stand do not align with the inflated market and astronomical wages. It's impossible to sustain.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lol dafuq are you talking about? Guarantee of growth? I would love to know an example of this in the real world. Every decision a business makes entails a substantial risk. Far greater a risk than any Premier League clubs who can just go to the bank for infinite loans and post 9 figure annual losses without flinching.
I don’t think you understand how much leeway these clubs have been given. If normal businesses were posting losses at a similar rate to PL clubs, they would end up liquidated and their directs thrown away in prison
posted on 22/3/24
Directors*
posted on 22/3/24
If you think the Premier league rules are strict then look at UEFA’s, the game is changing - for the better in my opinion.
Without these rules we would have Newcastle and Villa dumping schitt loads of cash in and distorting things even more. Newcastles owners have more money than the rest of the premier league combined - that includes Man City’s owners, it would be farcical as they would just keep buying until they won everything - like City did and Chelsea before them.
Where does that leave the other Clubs? At least this way we have the likes of Liverpool and Arsena able to compete with City. Newcastle have an injury crisis and are languishing mid table, Chelsea have mental owners who know faaaack all about football. Villa are doing well but they will be in a tough spot if they don’t make CL. This is the way it should be. Liverpool will likely be more beatable next year. This is healthy. If they ever properly get to grips with City then the competition will be fantastic
posted on 22/3/24
comment by Striketeam7 - There used to be a football club over there (U18109)
posted 10 minutes ago
If you think the Premier league rules are strict then look at UEFA’s, the game is changing - for the better in my opinion.
Without these rules we would have Newcastle and Villa dumping schitt loads of cash in and distorting things even more. Newcastles owners have more money than the rest of the premier league combined - that includes Man City’s owners, it would be farcical as they would just keep buying until they won everything - like City did and Chelsea before them.
Where does that leave the other Clubs? At least this way we have the likes of Liverpool and Arsena able to compete with City. Newcastle have an injury crisis and are languishing mid table, Chelsea have mental owners who know faaaack all about football. Villa are doing well but they will be in a tough spot if they don’t make CL. This is the way it should be. Liverpool will likely be more beatable next year. This is healthy. If they ever properly get to grips with City then the competition will be fantastic
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I can see both sides of this debate because you're right, it's not sustainable. That said, locking everyone in to their current revenue streams keeps the status quo.
I think Gary Neville had the right idea. He said that spending should be capped at the same level as the revenue generated by the top club in the league. That keeps competition alive and stops anyone from running away with it. So essentially City would be hamstrung by ffp but others wouldn't be quite so much. Think of catch up logic on driving games. It's a similar thing.
posted on 22/3/24
comment by fridgeboy (U1053)
posted 19 minutes ago
comment by Striketeam7 - There used to be a football club over there (U18109)
posted 10 minutes ago
If you think the Premier league rules are strict then look at UEFA’s, the game is changing - for the better in my opinion.
Without these rules we would have Newcastle and Villa dumping schitt loads of cash in and distorting things even more. Newcastles owners have more money than the rest of the premier league combined - that includes Man City’s owners, it would be farcical as they would just keep buying until they won everything - like City did and Chelsea before them.
Where does that leave the other Clubs? At least this way we have the likes of Liverpool and Arsena able to compete with City. Newcastle have an injury crisis and are languishing mid table, Chelsea have mental owners who know faaaack all about football. Villa are doing well but they will be in a tough spot if they don’t make CL. This is the way it should be. Liverpool will likely be more beatable next year. This is healthy. If they ever properly get to grips with City then the competition will be fantastic
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I can see both sides of this debate because you're right, it's not sustainable. That said, locking everyone in to their current revenue streams keeps the status quo.
I think Gary Neville had the right idea. He said that spending should be capped at the same level as the revenue generated by the top club in the league. That keeps competition alive and stops anyone from running away with it. So essentially City would be hamstrung by ffp but others wouldn't be quite so much. Think of catch up logic on driving games. It's a similar thing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It means clubs have to be more smart commercially moving forward. Top managers will be worth their weight in gold. Also mid sized clubs can still pull shrewd moves in the transfer market to increase their revenues like Brighton. If it wasn’t for the Newcastles and Villas, Brighton would’ve fared better over the past season or two in the league. So better regulation is better overall for the game.
posted on 22/3/24
Woolwich must be close with their huge spending
posted on 22/3/24
comment by ●Billy The Spur● LEVY OUT- ENIC OUT! (U3924)
posted 23 minutes ago
Woolwich must be close with their huge spending
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Given that we are looking to spend a significant fee on a marquee forward I'd say we are ok and we have a number of marketable assets we can sell ie Smith-Rowe, Nketiah, Tierney, Lokonga, Nelson etc so I'd predict another fairly good summer to improve our squad even further.
posted on 22/3/24
comment by BelfastSpur (U15068)
posted 3 hours, 41 minutes ago
comment by fridgeboy (U1053)
posted 19 minutes ago
comment by Striketeam7 - There used to be a football club over there (U18109)
posted 10 minutes ago
If you think the Premier league rules are strict then look at UEFA’s, the game is changing - for the better in my opinion.
Without these rules we would have Newcastle and Villa dumping schitt loads of cash in and distorting things even more. Newcastles owners have more money than the rest of the premier league combined - that includes Man City’s owners, it would be farcical as they would just keep buying until they won everything - like City did and Chelsea before them.
Where does that leave the other Clubs? At least this way we have the likes of Liverpool and Arsena able to compete with City. Newcastle have an injury crisis and are languishing mid table, Chelsea have mental owners who know faaaack all about football. Villa are doing well but they will be in a tough spot if they don’t make CL. This is the way it should be. Liverpool will likely be more beatable next year. This is healthy. If they ever properly get to grips with City then the competition will be fantastic
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I can see both sides of this debate because you're right, it's not sustainable. That said, locking everyone in to their current revenue streams keeps the status quo.
I think Gary Neville had the right idea. He said that spending should be capped at the same level as the revenue generated by the top club in the league. That keeps competition alive and stops anyone from running away with it. So essentially City would be hamstrung by ffp but others wouldn't be quite so much. Think of catch up logic on driving games. It's a similar thing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It means clubs have to be more smart commercially moving forward. Top managers will be worth their weight in gold. Also mid sized clubs can still pull shrewd moves in the transfer market to increase their revenues like Brighton. If it wasn’t for the Newcastles and Villas, Brighton would’ve fared better over the past season or two in the league. So better regulation is better overall for the game.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Agreed. It also encourages clubs to produce their own talent so the national team will benefit in the long run.
Let's not forget clubs can lose £100m over a three year rolling period. That's alot of money.
posted on 22/3/24
not fair
posted on 22/3/24
All this chatter is all well and good, BUT..........
does anyone know if Spurs may be in violation of PSR? .....
posted on 22/3/24
does anyone know if Spurs may be in violation of PSR?
---
Yeah we're not even close. Years of penny pinching and all the lovely revenue from the new stadium means we're fine
posted on 22/3/24
comment by Bãleș left boot (U22081)
posted 17 minutes ago
does anyone know if Spurs may be in violation of PSR?
---
Yeah we're not even close. Years of penny pinching and all the lovely revenue from the new stadium means we're fine
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So glad to hear that,...BUT... wasn't the stadium financed with very very large loans?
Wouldn't that factor into financial analyses for PSR?
posted on 22/3/24
Such loans would have interest payments, for example.
posted on 22/3/24
Gotta say,....having just read up a bit....and I mean there's a hell of a lot out there...on FFP and PSR...I have no idea in hell as to what expenditures are counted and what are not counted among the finances of a club's operations.
Can anyone clue me in?
posted on 22/3/24
And I can well understand why any club accused of violating PSR would have a damned good legal case against the FA, and .......would those legal fees be counted as expenditures in calculating PSR?
posted on 22/3/24
"Leicester in HUGE trouble"??
I'd say the FA could be in huge trouble.
If I was a club owner, I'd tie the FA up in court over this for a generation.
posted on 22/3/24
Anyone with the lightest interest in PSR would do well to read this.....
https://theathletic.com/5205988/2024/01/17/psr-premier-league-105m/
YUP, the rules are "about to change".
And I can damned well see why.
But the question is....change to WHAT?
posted on 22/3/24
I quote just one paragraph.....
"“The Premier League, with the EFL, is considering moving away from the PSR to a squad cost ratio mechanism. This would replace PSR in the future. PSR will be around this season and next as a bare minimum and may even be kept alongside it. I don’t know. All those decisions are yet to be made.”
You bet any club punished under the existing rules may have a damned good legal case the moment the rules change.
Any of you football fans are lawyers?....Here's a career in the making for you all!
posted on 22/3/24
And for those who think WE are safe....
"In their representations to the Premier League, Everton accepted they had exceeded the PSR threshold but cited the cost of interest on loans taken out for the development of their new Bramley-Moore Dock stadium, COVID-19 costs, and the impact of lost sponsorship revenue when oligarch Alisher Usmanov — an ally of their then-owner Farhad Moshiri — was sanctioned following Russia's 2022 invasion of Ukraine."
YES, Everton had to take in the interest payments on loans for their stadium upgrade.
This PSR stuff is so damned complex...the league may have been stupid to get into it.
Now, Fair Play IS a thing that should be legislated. But HOW is the question?
posted on 22/3/24
comment by Spurtle (U1608)
posted 11 hours, 59 minutes ago
comment by PhilspursFGR (U3278)
posted 4 minutes ago
Spurs signed Everton's best player at the time, Richarlison. Shortly after, Everton docked points.
Spurs signed Forests best player at the time, Johnson. Shortly after, Forest docked points.
Spurs signed Leicester's best player at the time, Maddison. Shortly after, Leicester docked points.
Who else can we ruin?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We should go all in for Gallagher now. Pay whatever it takes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
posted on 23/3/24
comment by Bill Nick: pop star (U23088)
posted 33 minutes ago
comment by Spurtle (U1608)
posted 11 hours, 59 minutes ago
comment by PhilspursFGR (U3278)
posted 4 minutes ago
Spurs signed Everton's best player at the time, Richarlison. Shortly after, Everton docked points.
Spurs signed Forests best player at the time, Johnson. Shortly after, Forest docked points.
Spurs signed Leicester's best player at the time, Maddison. Shortly after, Leicester docked points.
Who else can we ruin?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We should go all in for Gallagher now. Pay whatever it takes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Whose is going to laugh last?
Them or Us? .....
posted on 23/3/24
Leicester City: Championship club start legal proceedings against Premier League and EFL over alleged spending breaches
As I predicted above, based upon my limited understanding of PCR...here it is guys...the lawyers will always win...they make the money out of these legal wranglings...
https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/68635985
posted on 23/3/24
…..and still $purs are miles away from winning the PL .
posted on 23/3/24
Bigger clubs with the most money win most things. It was ever thus.
These rules do not prevent clubs joining the top table , they just mean that it has to be done in a sustainable way.
The rules allow some losses and investment in infrastructure to grow revenues, but this takes time and good decision making.
They just prevent you from spending £1bn on players, having massive unaffordable wage bills in the hope that you succeed and in the end, you become financially viable.
Look at Everton. Even without their FFP issues they spent +£0.5bn and got worse to the point that they're nearly relegated and are still looking for new investors. If they had gone down, God knows what mess theyd be in now.
City are the extreme example BUT they are very well structured and run. In a ruleless world not all clubs would be so well run as that, there'd be plenty of Everton type owners making a mess of things.
The rules are for the food of all because for every club that might benefit from massive spending and become a powerhouse, there would be clubs going the other and potentially into oblivion.
Page 2 of 3