Jackie Broon

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.

'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/