Alexander Isak

[KaKa]

1 hour ago, The College Dropout said:

 

And they will be replaced by years when our amortisation and squad costs are so high vs revenue that we can't spend significant amounts of money without sales.

 

The proof is literally in the pudding  our recent transfer record and the comments from Howe and that players agents.

 

PSR is based on an allowance of up to £105 million in losses over the previous 3 years.

 

This summer the 21/22 season drops off the calculation, where we spent a bunch and didn't have any new income arranged yet. It will be replaced with this season which will include new income and where we didn't spend much in the market.

 

This is all explained here:- https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5599305/2024/07/01/newcastle-psr-player-sales/

 

Although further exits will follow, for now, at least, the focus turns to incomings and Howe’s desire to sign a centre-back, right-winger, forward and another goalkeeper. With the 2021-22 accounts dropping off the three-year PSR period and lucrative sponsorships like the shirt agreement with Adidas bolstering Newcastle’s income, they should now have decent capacity to invest in their squad again

 

 

[The College Dropout]

10 minutes ago, KaKa said:

 

When that whole license plate thing occured it was mid season.

 

Isak had scored 4 goals in 17 matches so far. They were not excited about signing him and were talking about his previous good season being a possible anomaly.

 

The guy they were excited about was Vlahovic who they were also being strongly linked with at the time, and who was going crazy at Fiorentina, scoring a bunch of goals.

Again - we must know different Arsenal fans. That Isak plate went viral because they were excited. Again - this is a team that had Lacazette up top.

 

Let's agree to disagree.

[loki679]

17 minutes ago, KaKa said:

 

PSR is based on an allowance of up to £105 million in losses over the previous 3 years.

 

This summer the 21/22 season drops off the calculation, where we spent a bunch and didn't have any new income arranged yet. It will be replaced with this season which will include new income and where we didn't spend much in the market.

 

This is all explained here:- https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5599305/2024/07/01/newcastle-psr-player-sales/

 

Although further exits will follow, for now, at least, the focus turns to incomings and Howe’s desire to sign a centre-back, right-winger, forward and another goalkeeper. With the 2021-22 accounts dropping off the three-year PSR period and lucrative sponsorships like the shirt agreement with Adidas bolstering Newcastle’s income, they should now have decent capacity to invest in their squad again

 

 

 

But that doesn't matter anymore does it?  I thought it was changing to squad cost vs revenue this year so we can only spend a maximum 70% of our revenue on wages / amortisation etc.  Last figures I saw had us at 68%.

[80]

On 15/01/2025 at 01:03, 80 said:

Basically, you're right about the three year period. Year 1 drops off when Year 4 comes along, and then Year 2 drops off when Year 5 comes along. 

 

But if you buy someone in Year 1 on a 5 year contract, in PSR you're still paying exactly the same amount for him in Year 5 as you were back at the start.

 

E.g. a £50m transfer fee plus £5m wages per year equals a cost of £15m in Year 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 (that's the £5m wages plus a portion of the transfer fee).

 

So even though we bought Bruno, Burn and Trippier four PSR seasons ago, in PSR we're still paying the same for them now as we were originally, and will be next season too. So the amount we're spending each season in PSR-world has gone up every season, pretty much like a snowball rolling down a hill.

 

For nitpickers, I'm just trying to keep the explanation simple and without more complications than necessary.

@KaKa

 

The quoted post (plus others following it in the thread) pretty much sums up the situation with PSR. We should have some room for manoeuvre but it's not just a case of heavy losses from 3 years ago dropping off unfortunately.

[Jackie Broon]

12 minutes ago, loki679 said:

 

But that doesn't matter anymore does it?  I thought it was changing to squad cost vs revenue this year so we can only spend a maximum 70% of our revenue on wages / amortisation etc.  Last figures I saw had us at 68%.

 

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

[The College Dropout]

26 minutes ago, KaKa said:

 

PSR is based on an allowance of up to £105 million in losses over the previous 3 years.

 

This summer the 21/22 season drops off the calculation, where we spent a bunch and didn't have any new income arranged yet. It will be replaced with this season which will include new income and where we didn't spend much in the market.

 

This is all explained here:- https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5599305/2024/07/01/newcastle-psr-player-sales/

 

Although further exits will follow, for now, at least, the focus turns to incomings and Howe’s desire to sign a centre-back, right-winger, forward and another goalkeeper. With the 2021-22 accounts dropping off the three-year PSR period and lucrative sponsorships like the shirt agreement with Adidas bolstering Newcastle’s income, they should now have decent capacity to invest in their squad again

 

 

I know how FFP works and while I’m not an accountant I seemingly know more about it than you.  
 

Our wages were 75% of revenue alone. Add amortisation and we are likely already eating into our allowable losses. 
 

Whenever the UEFA and PL rule changes kick-in our wages and amortisation costs must be a maximum of 75% (or close - forget off hand) of revenue. Forecasting From the facts we know today, that’s going to be difficult to achieve while keeping our best players and significantly improving the squad. 

[KaKa]

11 minutes ago, 80 said:

@KaKa

 

The quoted post (plus others following it in the thread) pretty much sums up the situation with PSR. We should have some room for manoeuvre but it's not just a case of heavy losses from 3 years ago dropping off unfortunately.

 

Yes, I know that's not the only thing, but it's a big part of it. I think the article I posted explains it all quite well.

 

Room to manoeuvre is what we need, rather than not being able to spend at all like the summer past.

[KaKa]

3 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

I know how FFP works and while I’m not an accountant I seemingly know more about it than you.  
 

Our wages were 75% of revenue alone. Add amortisation and we are likely already eating into our allowable losses. 
 

Whenever the UEFA and PL rule changes kick-in our wages and amortisation costs must be a maximum of 75% (or close - forget off hand) of revenue. Forecasting From the facts we know today, that’s going to be difficult to achieve while keeping our best players and significantly improving the squad. 

 

Yes, I know this is your obsession.

 

When the summer comes along we'll see what transpires.

[loki679]

7 minutes ago, Jackie Broon said:

 

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

 

What the fuck? Why???

[Dancing Brave]

[Dr.Spaceman]

That's got to be fake, Sky don't use capitals in their channel names

 

 

Edited Monday at 14:45 by Dr.Spaceman

[SteV]

[M1tche]

On 26/01/2025 at 20:15, relámpago blanco said:

Yeah, it's weird though. Maybe they have the same dad but they don't know. Definitely something weird going on in understanding.

I've played with a few players over the years, where it just seems to click. 1 of them I didn't even get on with at all off the pitch. It's brilliant to see, Isak had similar building with Willock before his string of injuries.