Premier League cannot take action against the club for exceeding the relevant PSR threshold

[S1DDO]

The fact that ANY club is allowed to run at a loss is ****ing stupid

 

 Back to pissing cash up the wall it is then 

Edited 5 September by S1DDO

[fox_favourite]

Let's face it, football is broken. 

[Sly]

I guess the serious question is, how many Premier League clubs have gone bust? 
 

Portsmouth went into admin in 2010.

 

Maybe Chelsea in 1992ish? 

 

Maybe it’s as simple as if you fail to make a wage payment, an independent body is appointed (basically an administrator), who can sell players immediately outside of a transfer window at under market value. 
 

That way it clears the debt, reduced wages and the clubs will think harder about being sustainable with that threat. 
 

It’s clear that the current rules are over complicated and unworkable. 

[Phenom]

1 hour ago, S1DDO said:

The fact that ANY club is allowed to run at a loss is ****ing stupid

 

 Back to pissing cash up the wall it is then 

That would just mean that the top, most popular clubs will continue to rule, even more than they do now.

 

If you want more parity, add a spending cap – not that I advocate for that or anything. 

[Sly]

So reading the NY Times / Athletic piece on it.
 

We were allowed £105m losses.

 

We had £129.4m losses, £24.4m over.

 

This is worth a read:

 

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5742838/2024/09/04/leicester-city-psr-premier-league/?source=user_shared_article

[Sly]

4 minutes ago, Phenom said:

That would just mean that the top, most popular clubs will continue to rule, even more than they do now.

 

If you want more parity, add a spending cap – not that I advocate for that or anything. 

A wage cap to enter European competitions is what is required. However, this will no doubt mean that the greedy clubs will setup a super league. 

[SafewayFox]

9 hours ago, coolhandfox said:

Whilst the EFL maybe disappointed does it really want another league battle on its hands.

 

I don"t think there is chance they can come after us for 22/23.

I haven’t been able to keep up with every page but are we hopeful that if we do get relegated that the EFL won’t hit us with a retrospective penalty?

[Jimbo]

One way this gets worse for the premier league is if we stay up this season in 17th, a point or 2 above Everton. The rules around all of this are completely broken and so easy to mock

 

We went down at the expense of Everton, who were then punished the following season for breaking rules in the previous seasons (if the rules are applied to when the "offence" has occurred we would have stayed up. Then, because of our relegation, and us being a bit savvy foreseeing the future consequences and testing our luck with it, we now can't be punished in the same way as Everton. 

 

If we stay up this year and Everton get relegated (and going off a bit here on some sort of fairytale, but the potential is always there) Everton fall into a state similar to that of Bolton, or Portsmouth etc, we build, as we have done in the past, and we start to see that return of challenging for European spots etc (not saying in will happen, certainly not with Cooper in charge!) then Everton and the poor rules saved us

 

All that is happening at the moment is the premier league are making it more and more obvious that all they care about is revenue and the clubs that provide the most to them. While I'm not exactly proud that my team finds itself in this situation and that we've been responsible in the past for rule changes because of financial misdemeanors, I'm certainly glad that we're the ones sticking it to them

[K789]

7 hours ago, The_77 said:

 

This is excellent news. Surely means mo way we've failed with this extra 22 mill to play with

[K789]

Just now, K789 said:

This is excellent news. Surely means mo way we've failed with this extra 22 mill to 

Would also make sense as borson has been speculating we were 20 mill over the 83 mill threshold, so by his reckoning we should be ok

[turlo]

40 minutes ago, Sly said:

 

So reading the NY Times / Athletic piece on it.
 

We were allowed £105m losses.

 

We had £129.4m losses, £24.4m over.

 

This is worth a read:

 

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5742838/2024/09/04/leicester-city-psr-premier-league/?source=user_shared_article

i could not open the article but does it take into consideration potential allowable deuctions such as academy and womens teams running costs?

[Wasyls Pec Deck]

55 minutes ago, Sly said:

I guess the serious question is, how many Premier League clubs have gone bust? 
 

Portsmouth went into admin in 2010.

 

Maybe Chelsea in 1992ish? 

 

Maybe it’s as simple as if you fail to make a wage payment, an independent body is appointed (basically an administrator), who can sell players immediately outside of a transfer window at under market value. 
 

That way it clears the debt, reduced wages and the clubs will think harder about being sustainable with that threat. 
 

It’s clear that the current rules are over complicated and unworkable. 

One solution instead of the current rules, and as proposed by the likes of Gary Neville, is a more simple solution where owners simply have to put up a bond before any lavish spending spree. So if an owner comes in and wants to spend £500m in a given period they are required to secure that amount or more up front, and it’s held by the authorities.

[Sly]

10 minutes ago, turlo said:

i could not open the article but does it take into consideration potential allowable deuctions such as academy and womens teams running costs?

Yes, that was after.

 

i opened it in Safari on my iPhone, then put it into “reader mode”

immediately 

[Sly]

9 minutes ago, Wasyls Pec Deck said:

One solution instead of the current rules, and as proposed by the likes of Gary Neville, is a more simple solution where owners simply have to put up a bond before any lavish spending spree. So if an owner comes in and wants to spend £500m in a given period they are required to secure that amount or more up front, and it’s held by the authorities.

I’ve suggested this before, almost like a project bank account. 

[Jimbo]

8 minutes ago, Sly said:

I’ve suggested this before, almost like a project bank account. 

The other solution would be to have a salary cap too. But that would have to be worldwide. Raheem Sterling on 325k a week in the premier league is ridiculous. Ivan Toney on a reported 400k tax free in Saudi.....!!

 

The clear and obvious flaw in the PSR rules is that they're still geared towards the "big 6" moving forward while the rest compete for scraps. 

 

The one thing that continually grinds my gears about any financial rules is the state of Man United. They have a historical debt of around £800million! Yet it's not included in anything, because it's always been there. Like it or not, regardless of their current ability on the pitch, they are one of the biggest teams in the world and because of this can continually spend what they like, compared to us for example or even the likes of Newcastle (one of the richest sports clubs in the entire world) because of the revenue they bring in, completely discounting the fact that none of their "profit" is ever used to pay off any of their historical debts. 

Chelsea, who found a loop hole (or not if you listen to Simon Jordan) and sold none related assets to stay in line with financial rules don't really get a mention. 

 

Us, Brentford, Palace etc etc etc are never going to be able to compete year on year because our hands are always tied. 

[Pliskin]

[ClaphamFox]

8 hours ago, The_77 said:

 

I really want to know whether this is true or not. Hopefully one of the journalists who cover us will look into it…

[Jobyfox]

1 hour ago, Wasyls Pec Deck said:

One solution instead of the current rules, and as proposed by the likes of Gary Neville, is a more simple solution where owners simply have to put up a bond before any lavish spending spree. So if an owner comes in and wants to spend £500m in a given period they are required to secure that amount or more up front, and it’s held by the authorities.

This, for me, is closer to the correct solution. If the rules really are in place to protect against clubs spending unsustainably and getting into financial difficulty.

 

It would assume, however, that the rules aren’t really there to ensure that the status quo is maintained and to ensure a competitive advantage for the biggest clubs. 
 

I can imagine already the squealing that the greedy six would do if this was implemented. I could imagine a team (like Newcastle) would happily pay and threaten the cartel immediately 

[phoneticerror]

Just listening to Simon Jordan get angry about it. Such a jumped up ****. 😂😂 Cry harder Simon.

[Chrysalis]

2 hours ago, Sly said:

I guess the serious question is, how many Premier League clubs have gone bust? 
 

Portsmouth went into admin in 2010.

 

Maybe Chelsea in 1992ish? 

 

Maybe it’s as simple as if you fail to make a wage payment, an independent body is appointed (basically an administrator), who can sell players immediately outside of a transfer window at under market value. 
 

That way it clears the debt, reduced wages and the clubs will think harder about being sustainable with that threat. 
 

It’s clear that the current rules are over complicated and unworkable. 

I read an article probably a year or two back if I remember right showing how robust the football structure is compared to what is pretended as a selling point of FFP.

 

To me there is two ways to regulate financially.

 

Its either light touch regulation, where its hands off, until things start being defaulted, tax doesnt get paid, wages dont get paid that sort of thing, at which point like you said a forceful administrator is appointed

 

Or you regulate spending, but its not based on revenue, its a fixed squad spend, salary cap or whatever.

 

FFP is so complicated because I think the real reason it got implemented the way it has been is nothing to do with safety of clubs, its to do with locking in advantages, so to achieve that they made it based on revenue and that of course makes it super complicated.  As they then have all sorts of things designed to restrict what can be classed as income etc.  Inevitably this leads to loopholes and we are where we are today.

Edited 5 September by Chrysalis

[Chrysalis]

56 minutes ago, Jimbo said:

The other solution would be to have a salary cap too. But that would have to be worldwide. Raheem Sterling on 325k a week in the premier league is ridiculous. Ivan Toney on a reported 400k tax free in Saudi.....!!

 

The clear and obvious flaw in the PSR rules is that they're still geared towards the "big 6" moving forward while the rest compete for scraps. 

 

The one thing that continually grinds my gears about any financial rules is the state of Man United. They have a historical debt of around £800million! Yet it's not included in anything, because it's always been there. Like it or not, regardless of their current ability on the pitch, they are one of the biggest teams in the world and because of this can continually spend what they like, compared to us for example or even the likes of Newcastle (one of the richest sports clubs in the entire world) because of the revenue they bring in, completely discounting the fact that none of their "profit" is ever used to pay off any of their historical debts. 

Chelsea, who found a loop hole (or not if you listen to Simon Jordan) and sold none related assets to stay in line with financial rules don't really get a mention. 

 

Us, Brentford, Palace etc etc etc are never going to be able to compete year on year because our hands are always tied. 

Yep the fact debt is ignored, especially 3rd party debt is ridiculous.

 

I think it doesnt need to be worldwide to start a salary cap, if we have that as a condition it will never happen.  First and foremost the prime importance is the national league competitions, they come above European competitions in my opinion.

[moore_94]

9 hours ago, The_77 said:

 

Wouldn’t surprise me at all if the club already had Nick De Marco looking at this prepared to argue it if the Prem try to do us for the period

[Vlad the Fox]

Simon Jordan states that he wouldn’t let a club he runs break psr, but he ran palace into administration which is a far worse and more serious situation than breaking some rules that restrict competition.

 

Secondly the allowable losses haven’t changed since psr was brought in over 10 years ago, this will further screw the smaller clubs as costs and transfer fees and wages rise. Kieran Maguire said on radio Leicester a few months back that if psr was index linked the figure would be a lot higher and if our alleged breach of £24m is true it would have put us under the threshold in this instance. 
 

For the sake of competition a level playing field needs setting up were any team can compete spending wise with any other club in the league, if this involves some sort of cap so be it, maybe if what the greedy six can spend is linked to the revenue of smaller clubs they will be more altruistic in spreading the wealth.

Edited 5 September by Vlad the Fox

[Pliskin]

3 minutes ago, Vlad the Fox said:

Simon Jordan states that he wouldn’t let a club he runs break psr, but he ran palace into administration which is a far worse and more serious situation than breaking some rules that restrict competition.

 

Secondly the allowable losses haven’t changed since psr was brought in over 10 years ago, this will further screw the smaller clubs as costs and transfer fees and wages rise. Kieran Maguire said on radio Leicester a few months back that if psr was index linked the figure would be a lot higher and if our alleged breach of £24m is true it would have put us under the threshold in this instance. 
 

For the sake of competition a level playing field needs setting up were any team can compete spending wise with any other club in the league, if this involves some sort of cap so be it, maybe if what the greedy six can spend is linked to the revenue of smaller clubs they will be more altruistic in spreading the wealth.

Simon Jordan probably starts every morning by arguing with the person in the mirror. 

[st albans fox]

If Borsan is right then our allowable losses to 2024 are 105m but the next three seasons will be 83m 

that’s excellent news re no likely points deduction for that period but beyond is going to be even tougher. we were always going to have three seasons of 83m allowable - this just kicks it down the road for a season
 

need to get some of those academy boys in the team cos we’re going to have to sell them !