Jackie Broon

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.

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.