Steve Charlton

Can you remember what for? The timing with Levy being sacked and Hopkinson signing on with us along with this Citeh stuff is interesting... Borson replied to this over at bluemoon And no settlement between City and the PL prevents other teams (like Newcastle) from claiming the rules are unlawful. I agree nothing blocks Newcastle from picking up the reigns but they didn't even bother to be co-claimant with City so that is unlikely unless the new CEO wants to cause a stir.

Nothin changed for us with regards to rules unless its in the small print Cartel infighting for all to see

APT hearing this month with outcome by end of year Premier League clubs not ready to ditch PSR — they want chance to exploit it Concerns over fair play prompted calls for reform but, as one club figure says, ‘others benefited from the loopholes — now we want that flexibility’ Martyn Ziegler An unholy mess,” is one Premier League club executive’s view of the competition’s Profitability and Sustainability Rules. “More loopholes than a sieve,” is the opinion of another senior club figure. “Not fit for purpose,” a third says. Given such strident views, it seems strange that the 20 top-flight clubs agreed to continue with PSR for this season — and stranger still that there is a high chance they will stick with it as the default system for the 2026-27 campaign too. The Premier League’s handbook does not spell out the general principles or aims of PSR, though the clue is in the name — to stop clubs overspending. Its critics, however, would claim that the system also works to maintain the status quo. PSR was introduced at the start of the 2015-16 season. It set an upper limit on the amount clubs could lose: £105million over a rolling three-year period, though spending on academies, women’s football and stadiums or facilities was exempt from the calculation. It appeared to work well for the first five years. Only in the past three years, with Everton and Nottingham Forest both having points deductions imposed for losing more than the permitted amount over three years, has PSR become a byword for controversy among fans, commentators and some clubs. Clever accountants appear to have found ingenious ways around the rules. Chelsea led the way, first selling two hotels to a sister company and then their women’s team to their parent company, to register paper profits. The Premier League’s rules do not forbid such practices, unlike the EFL and Uefa. Instead the league relies on establishing that the deals are of fair market value and insists that its diligence around this system means they are not “loopholes”. Other clubs in danger of breaching the loss limits a year ago realised that convenient “swap” deals with other at-risk clubs could deliver important transfer income to ensure compliance. One of the unintended consequences of PSR is that it is worth much more to a club to sell an academy product for “pure profit” than a player who has not come through the youth system. It also encourages the “warehousing” of players, with some clubs building large squads with the main purpose of earning transfer revenue. Within the past year Everton and Aston Villa have both sold their women’s teams to related companies which will have helped their PSR figures That partly explains why Premier League clubs decided in February not to bring in two new systems for this season. One is the squad cost rule (SCR), which would limit the amount a club spends on player wages, transfers and agent fees to 85 per cent of their earnings. The other system is “anchoring”, which would mean the top teams’ spending on player costs is restricted to five times the amount the bottom club receives in TV and prize money. Those alternatives will be operated in shadow form instead for another season, before clubs decide whether to vote on implementing them. One of the club figures spoken to by The Times was honest about why they chose to keep PSR instead, saying: “Others have benefited from the loopholes — now we want to have that flexibility.” Another added: “The rules need ripping up and starting again, but there is not the appetite to do so.” The Premier League has tried three times now to bring in rules that close the loopholes around claiming profits from the sale of assets to related companies, but each time has failed to win support from the necessary two thirds of the clubs. It is understood there are no plans to try to do so again. Uefa’s rules are much tougher — its SCR limit is 70 per cent this season and its permitted losses are much lower. It will also not allow the sale of assets to related companies to be reported as profits, which partly explains why Chelsea and Villa breached the Uefa rules and have had stringent conditions around spending and transfers imposed. To this end, laments about PSR restricting Villa’s transfer activity this summer are missing the point — it is Uefa’s conditions that are the greater restriction. Given that nine English clubs have qualified for European competitions this season and are therefore subject to Uefa’s rules, it may seem easy enough to persuade another five to back the use of a lighter version of these regulations in the Premier League, but so far that support has not been there. As for anchoring, a tool that would aid those Premier League clubs who do not benefit from Champions League and Club World Cup money, that system looks doomed. Clubs including Manchester United and Manchester City are dead against it, while the Professional Footballers’ Association has already threatened legal action — on the basis that it could lead to restrictions on player earnings — should attempts be made to bring in the system. The impending arrival of the independent football regulator may also prompt proposals for another type of financial regulation for the top flight, with clubs being urged by the Premier League to agree a “liquidity” measure (in essence a guarantee of £12.5million to avoid any future financial crisis). Casting its shadow on all these regulations is the latest legal action being brought by City against the Premier League’s Associated Party Transaction (APT) rules. These are a vital part of PSR — and indeed SCR — and neither system can work properly without them. Unlike PSR, the Premier League’s handbook does explain the principle behind APT rules, stating that the system aims to promote “fairness among clubs, so that clubs are not able to derive an unfair advantage over domestic competitors by increasing revenues or reducing costs via arrangements with entities linked to a club’s ownership”. The arbitration hearing on the latest APT challenge is due to start this month, with an outcome by the end of the year. If City win and the APT rules collapse altogether, it will mean they and other state-connected clubs can secure any commercial deals they want with related entities, no matter if they are of fair market value or not. And should that be the case, PSR or SCR would become essentially meaningless and English football will have to grapple again with the question about whether having state-connected ownership, such as exists at City and Newcastle United, is a healthy thing for the world’s most popular domestic league.

Will score the winna vs Barca

Bidding war

Throw in wages its near a billion

Two Alan Shearers

Getting the delousing experts in is the first thing the club should do today

Absolutely.Hell of a fee for him too. Our Jorman looks like Maradona compared to him

Reckons nothing announced so we cant get a another body in without being fleeced How polite of them

My scouse mate is adamant its all done for some reason ?

Are we 4 down? Mileys playing well We can nick this

Cmon then ffs

Willy O working his bollocks off to be fair,Needs support! Ramsays looked ok but failed a simple through ball to Willy early on who was away Elanga for Murphy who’s been invisible

I hope so. Tanaka was brilliant v Everton,He ran the game,Ampadu played good aswell

Free Role

0-3 Howay The Lads

Keys saying on bein deal agreed 135.He was quoting Jan age of Swindon

Eddie sounded positive in the press conference.Great news with Sandro,Might make Leeds Constant Isak questions with one interesting one off Edwards "absolutely not" was the answer when asked if he promised Isak could leave if replacements were signed

Watched a few clips and the first player that came to my mind with the dribbling ability was George Best Not sure why none of the cartel went in for him,Is Sesko that much better than him or did they think he was nailed on for Bayern?

Remember Tino Asprilla coming on to change the game v Boro,I think that was within 48hrs

Who broke the news?

Bit of a sweat on before seeing this thread and news,This bloke looks outstanding

Var invisible when them bastards are fouling,Wirtz on Tonali and Gravenbach in the first