Jackie Broon

I agree, although it seems less likely to end up getting called-in by the SoS under this government.

I don't think that's right because the losses in our accounts won't be the actual PSR position, there would be additional deductions for youth, women's team and infrastructure spending. I think a ballpark figure of £10m per season. To work out what we needed to be within the £105m threshold in 23/24 it's probably more accurate to look at 20/21, because we have those accounts and the profit we made in 20/21 was enough for us to be within the £105 threshold together with 21/22 and 22/23, so the same profit in 23/24 must also put us within the £105 threshold. 20/21 Profit (loss) = (£13.7m) Covid allowances = £25.9m Other allowances = £10m Deduction for extension of accounting period = (£12.7m) = £9.5m PSR profit So, unless I've got something completely wrong from our 20/21 accounts (which is quite possible) a £9.5m profit in 23/24 should have seen us safe. There were stories last week that we'd made a £27m profit in 23/24 (which would be more like £37m for PSR with allowances), so from that it seems that we didn't actually need all of the money from Minteh and Anderson to meet the £105m threshold, although one or the other might not have been quite enough, or we might just have set up both deals just in case and decided to go through with both?

We are almost certainly not significantly restricted by PSR this window, I just think the right players at the right price haven't been avalible and we're setting ourselves up for a squad refresh in the summer.

Italians really do do bureaucracy like no one else, it took 2 years for my wife to get her Italian passport renewed and we're currently stuck in a Kafkaesque nightmare of trying to sort out inhering her late Dad's house.

It's not difficult to estimate, of course no one can know exactly, but the accounts for 21/22 and 22/23 are available, Swiss Ramble and Deloitte have produced probably reasonably accurate estimates for 23/24, from that a reasonable guesstimate can be made for 24/25. Our PSR position is dragged down hugely by 21/22 and 22/23, we will be in a far better position once they are off the books.

It has significantly changed this season because 21/22 has dropped off the PSR books. That was a season where we had a turnover of only £180m and costs before player trading of £226m, where we lost £70m after player trading and our owners had to inject £168m into the club. We are in a significantly better financial position this season, by my estimation we probably have around £30-50m of PSR headroom. Next season even better, by my estimation we could have £100m+ headroom. Squad cost rules could change that, but we don't know what they will be yet or even i they will definitely come in.

New contracts are generally neutral, or even a beneficial, in terms of yearly cost. Isak's amortisation currently costs the club around £12m per year and his wages are around £6m. If he signs a new 5 year contract now his yearly amortisation cost will drop to £6m, so we could double his wages without any additional yearly cost.

I was responding to you saying they are "passive investors". Of course the CEO runs the club day to day, but PIF having meetings to decide on transfer targets and negotiations, as was seen in the documentary, are not the actions of "passive investors".

That's clearly not the case from what we've heard and seen in the documentary, PIF are heavily involved and have final say on everything.

And Edwards' entire MO is to just say things aren't going to happen, knowing that he'll 'right' at least half of the time.

Hardly, there's only about two streets that aren't full student houses now.

IIRC he posted that Staveley and Jamie Reuben were on their way up to Newcastle just before the takeover news broke or something?

Could it be that he's talking about a new stadium on Castle Leazes that wouldn't creep into Leazes Park as much as he thought?

It's bollocks, as discussed in the PSR thread there is no chance that we are in any PSR trouble this season. It is beneficial in PSR terms, but it's definitely not necessary for us to sell this season.

We simply can't be breaching PSR this season. We know that we were compliant for the period 21/22, 22/23, 23/24 so we have to be compliant for the period 22/23, 23/24, 24/25 if 24/25 is not a larger loss than 21/22 and there is no way that we are running at a £70m+ loss this season.

I was saying that in relation to your post saying "Same calculations by others show we still need to sell." I don't know how much we are able to spend but it's just common sense that we do not need to sell to comply with PSR this year unless our losses this year are more than 21/22, which is vanishingly unlikely.

That is actually very basic and plain though, we didn't fail PSR last year, 21/22 has dropped off the calculation so our headroom for losses this season is at least what we lost in 21/22, which was around £70m.

We'd have to be making a loss larger than we did 21/22 to need to sell this season. That simply doesn't add up.

That's Deloitte's estimate rather than our actual revenue, which isn't available yet, I went with Swiss Ramble's estimates for consistency and because they're likely to be fairly realistic.

I know but, they haven't actually been adopted of finalised yet, and I don't believe we would have voted for something that makes our position a lot worse. Also, if they align with UEFA's rules the profit on player sales for the past three years is added to revenue, so we'd probably have plenty of headroom there too, at least until 2027/28.

I've done some sums and I think we're actually in a better PSR position than we're led to believe: 22/23 Revenue 250m Expenses 230m Amortisation 93m Allowable deductions £10m Profit on player sales £3m PSR profit (loss) – (£60m) Estimate for 23/24 (based on Swiss Ramble’s figures) Revenue 300m Expenses 247m Amortisation 109m Allowable deductions £10m Profit on player sales £75m PSR profit (loss) - £29m Rough guestimate for 24/25 Revenue 320m Expenses 260m Amortisation 95m Allowable deductions £10m Profit on player sales £8m (assuming Miggy is sold) PSR profit (loss) – (£17m) PSR allows a £105m loss over three years, we have probably got a fair bit of headroom this season. Last season was exceptional because of the two huge losses is 21/22 and 22/23, where we were PIF spending on a Ashley revenue and 20/21, in which we made a profit, dropping off the books.

No, the squad cost rules will (probably) be in addition to the current PSR rules rather than replacing them. Also, if they align with the UEFA squad cost rules, profit on player sales over the past three years are added to revenue.

PSR is over three seasons, so we benefit from the Anderson, Minteh and ASM sales in the PSR calculation until 25/26. For the purposes of PSR we made a profit of around £20m in 23/24 and that stays part of the calculation until 25/26.

Extreme end of theoretical, but the point is that in the short term his signing was a PSR benefit.