Jackie Broon

Yeah, but the Vlachodimos deal is a PSR benefit in the short term, theoretically releasing up to £100m of extra PSR headroom.

We haven't quite spent fuck all because we technically signed Hall last summer. But we are likely to have more headroom to spend this summer.

Just looking through that and seems that I was wrong and @Colos Short and Curlies is right, amortisation costs are included but, strangely, profit on player sales is over 36 months whereas everything else is over 12 months.

Yes but "on player sales" is the important bit. For example a club buys a player for £20m on a 5 year contract. After one season his amortised value is £16m, the club sells him at the point for 24m, that is a net profit of £8m which is added to the turnover figure.

We did, along with every other club back in April, but that was apparently just in principle and was reported as aligning with UEFA's rules.

Have the new rules actually been voted in yet? The vote back in April was only 'in principle', and in June they voted to trial the squad cost rules this season. Also, we don't know the full details what the proposed rules are, I know it has been reported as including amortisation, but that seems bonkers and unworkable, pretty much every club would fail. In the UEFA rules the limit is just on wages and agent fees, not amortisation. So it would seem incredibly restrictive for the PL to restrict wages, agent fees and amortisation to 70% (or 85% if not in Europe). The PL press release in june that said "SCR will regulate on-pitch spend to a proportion (85 per cent) of a club’s football revenue and net profit/loss on player sales." I don't think that is the same thing as including amortisation.

It's not replacing the current PSR allowable losses, it's in addition to that.

Technically, but in reality players are on fixed term contracts, so there will allways be contracts expiring and being renewed or the players released. So, as I said, it is not static. The latest accounts actually include a projection of amortisation costs over 5 years and they fall by £18m and £22m respectively over the next two years. (I realise the actual fall might me more of less than that depending on timing and length of new contracts, sales and purchases)

He's just Ange Portecoglou.

'Aitch'

Actually, they're correcting spelling, not grammar.

But that isn't static, our amortisation costs fall by around by around £20m every year, which is equivalent to £100m in transfer fees.

As damning as it gets would be for the tribunal to find that the concept of restricting APTs is unlawful as a whole, they didn't find that, only that excluding shareholder loans, the changes to the burden of proof last year were unlawful, and there was procedural unfairness with delays and lack of access to data, but that the APT rules would otherwise be lawful.

That used to be the case, but now the rules require that any associated party deals are signed off by the PL before they are agreed. There law doesn't blanket ban restraint of trade, it can be acceptable where it is in the public interest. In the Man City tribunal some elements of the FMV rules were found to be anti-competitive but lawful due to the public interest of having controls over football club's finances.

Mike tickled a lot of people, allegedly.

Aye, ultimately it's only worth what someone will pay for it, how many buyers are they likely to be willing to pay 2/3s of a billion for a club that is losing tens of millions of pounds a year, needs massive investment in infrastructure and is completely hamstrung by PSR even with the richest owners in football? I just do not buy that PIF see us as a financial investment, it makes absolutely no sense.

That was based on what PIF paid Staveley for her shares, it wasn't a true valuation. We still need massive investment in stuff like stadium, academy and training facilities to move forward and are running at a significant loss. Everton have just been sold for £400m, okay they are behind us on the pitch but ahead of us in many ways off it. £645m seems about right.

It's actually £442m they have put in to date (together with the Reubens), so they'd need to sell for £747m just to break even. Forbes Value us at £645m. https://www.forbes.com/lists/soccer-valuations/

Because we're a shit investment. If they're lucky they'd maybe just about break even if they sold us tomorrow (not taking into account ehat they're put in with related party sponsorships) and it's going to take many more years of significant front and back door investment to have any hope of closing financial gap to the big 6 and us comparable in value.

I get that argument, but I'm not sure that's what would happen in reality. It's not like the current situation has prevented cost inflation. At the moment all that is happening it that the transfer market has stalled rather than player costs coming down. More clubs competing at the top and more money coming into the game can probably only be a good thing (well, other than for those clubs already at the top).

Missed Joelinton, I've added him in now. Our latest published accounts from 2023 have it at £89m. The accounts have a breakdown of the costs per year: Since then we've signed: Tonali - £12m (amortisation per year) Barnes - £7.6m Livramento - £6.2m Vlachodimos - £4m Hall - £5.6m Osula - £3m Total 38.4m Contract renewals that have reduced yearly amortisation: Bruno - 7.8 to 4.4 = -3.4m Burn - 5.2 to 2.2 = -3m Gordon 12.9 to 4.7 = -8.2m Total -£14.6m edit, I forgot to add sales since our last published accounts: ASM -£3.3m Minteh -£1.2m That works out at £90.7m for 2024/25 so my estimate is not far off.

I need to get a life I know but I decided to put together a spreadsheet estimating our current squad amortisation costs if it's of interest to anyone but me:

And just look at the long term success of that other midlands based club that footballed its way to brief success.

A nitpicnic?