Whitley mag Posted January 30 Share Posted January 30 (edited) 1 hour ago, alexf said: Does anyone feel like it's inevitable that we need to sell one of they core players for a minimum £70m+ in order to try and start building again? I don't see any other solutions at the moment. The squad was already getting stale and it was only the return of Tonali that has helped boost it this season but there's very little beneath the first 11. It doesn't seem like we are able to sell the deadwood for sufficient funds to be able to kick on, in the same way other clubs are able to do. Seems like we're pinning everything on getting top 5 this year but it's gonna be a tall ask with so many teams competing for it. No the ownership shot their load early and brought in top drawer players en masse, they decided to turbo charge the club after takeover instead of building slowly. We’ll undoubtedly see a more measured approach going forward, but I believe they’ll only sell if they think a player such as Bruno has peaked, otherwise they’ll hope to add to the core, once this 3 year PSR cycle which included the initial big spend drops off. The only problem we might encounter is giving Isak a wage befitting of a 150 million player and staying within the new 70% limit if that gets approved. The last 3 windows and certain players like Almiron and Wilson dropping off the wage bill will give us room to invest this summer. Edited January 30 by Whitley mag Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted January 30 Share Posted January 30 (edited) Generalising and conflating two points there I think (Waugh). Some sales are needed generally in PSR world, I don't think we needed £7m for Miggy to avoid a points deduction specifically. Edited January 30 by AyeDubbleYoo Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gjohnson Posted January 30 Share Posted January 30 4 hours ago, bowlingcrofty said: Nor is it supposed to change it..it's supposed to explain it with statistics Why are you so angry against a statistic that just helps to paint a picture? Cos it's new and trendy, and i think it's something football hipsters try to use to make themselves look cool and knowledgeable when it shows nothing useful that couldn't be seen by watching 3 minutes of Sky highlights Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gjohnson Posted January 30 Share Posted January 30 3 hours ago, Hudson said: Is xG part of PSR now and how does it effect us 🤔 The way people bang on about it you'd think it was Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUPERTOON Posted January 30 Share Posted January 30 1 hour ago, alexf said: Does anyone feel like it's inevitable that we need to sell one of they core players for a minimum £70m+ in order to try and start building again? I don't see any other solutions at the moment. The squad was already getting stale and it was only the return of Tonali that has helped boost it this season but there's very little beneath the first 11. It doesn't seem like we are able to sell the deadwood for sufficient funds to be able to kick on, in the same way other clubs are able to do. Seems like we're pinning everything on getting top 5 this year but it's gonna be a tall ask with so many teams competing for it. Either that, or increase our commercial income. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfcastle Posted January 30 Share Posted January 30 They don't factor expected saves or expected tackles into it which if it was to mean anything they should. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
80 Posted January 30 Share Posted January 30 (edited) 38 minutes ago, AyeDubbleYoo said: Generalising and conflating two points there I think (Waugh). Some sales are needed generally in PSR world, I don't think we needed £7m for Miggy to avoid a points deduction specifically. I think that's exactly it. I don't think we're in any immediate trouble this year if we hadn't sold. Edited January 30 by 80 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nobody Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 The problem with xG and especially xG stats/xP is that it doesn't take into account what is actually going on on the pitch and that football is generally a low scoring game. If a team is winning they are more likely to concede a higher xG than a winning team, but that doesn't necessarily reflect how the game is actually going. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaKa Posted Friday at 14:43 Share Posted Friday at 14:43 Just to give some idea of what Bournemouth are up to. Hope we start stepping up our own plans. https://footballeconomyv2.blogspot.com/2025/01/bournemouths-owners-invest-in-portugal.html Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The College Dropout Posted Friday at 14:55 Share Posted Friday at 14:55 11 minutes ago, KaKa said: Just to give some idea of what Bournemouth are up to. Hope we start stepping up our own plans. https://footballeconomyv2.blogspot.com/2025/01/bournemouths-owners-invest-in-portugal.html PIF already have multiple club. We just aren’t at the top of the pyramid. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
enthusiast Posted Friday at 15:07 Share Posted Friday at 15:07 multi-club ownership is fucking vile, i'd be disgusted if we started doing watford/city style-type shenanigans, shuffling players between clubs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turnbull2000 Posted Friday at 15:27 Share Posted Friday at 15:27 19 minutes ago, enthusiast said: multi-club ownership is fucking vile, i'd be disgusted if we started doing watford/city style-type shenanigans, shuffling players between clubs. With financial shackles the way they are, might be no other choice. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted Friday at 16:04 Share Posted Friday at 16:04 35 minutes ago, Turnbull2000 said: With financial shackles the way they are, might be no other choice. Exactly. This is exactly the right thread for it as well, thanks to Financial Fair Play ( ) this is exactly the sort of thing we have to be doing. That the PL and their cartel masters for it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SAK Posted Friday at 16:16 Share Posted Friday at 16:16 Others getting on with the multi club model. There was talk of us doing it but nothing has materialised. Not sure what the hold up is. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
enthusiast Posted Friday at 16:20 Share Posted Friday at 16:20 (edited) 53 minutes ago, Turnbull2000 said: might be no other choice. there plainly is a moral choice not to get involved in something that (iyam) is eroding the soul of the game, though i appreciate this might not be the time/place to have that discussion Edited Friday at 16:20 by enthusiast Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MagCA Posted Friday at 16:33 Share Posted Friday at 16:33 I have no issues with multi club. I welcome any venture we might have into it. Has to have a cool name, though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bunk Moreland Posted Friday at 16:36 Share Posted Friday at 16:36 If we were the first ones doing it as some kind of Chelsea-like innovation in rule flexing then I'd probably feel bad about us doing it, but literally every cunt else is adopting a multi-club model at this point so craic on and buy us a nice Belgian or Brazilian club I say. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Funtime Frankie Posted Friday at 16:50 Share Posted Friday at 16:50 13 minutes ago, Bunk Moreland said: If we were the first ones doing it as some kind of Chelsea-like innovation in rule flexing then I'd probably feel bad about us doing it, but literally every cunt else is adopting a multi-club model at this point so craic on and buy us a nice Belgian or Brazilian club I say. Brazilian club to hoover up all the young talent and sell to us well below market rate. Happens all the time with Red Bull and other multi club models. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SAK Posted Friday at 16:58 Share Posted Friday at 16:58 (edited) . Edited Friday at 17:00 by SAK Deleted as out of date info. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfcastle Posted Friday at 17:00 Share Posted Friday at 17:00 (edited) 1 hour ago, Turnbull2000 said: With financial shackles the way they are, might be no other choice. That's right. There's a lot of things that are vulgar that because of these bullshit rules leave little choice now. Stadium sponsorship, ticket prices, having a farm youth set up, selling home grown players, multi-club ownership. Its all crap but a case of don't hate the player hate the game. These rules are lifting Edited Friday at 17:01 by Wolfcastle Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledGeordie Posted Saturday at 11:31 Share Posted Saturday at 11:31 Am I right in understanding that we are essentially paying for over spending early on following the takeover? As the 3 year period comes to an end in June we’re still sailing close to the line? Is that right? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Posted Saturday at 11:35 Share Posted Saturday at 11:35 2 minutes ago, ExiledGeordie said: Am I right in understanding that we are essentially paying for over spending early on following the takeover? As the 3 year period comes to an end in June we’re still sailing close to the line? Is that right? Not really. If the rules at the time of takeover (105m loss over 3 years) were still in place we could spend, but since then new rules have been brought in to cap spending on players (wages and amortised fees) as a percentage of revenue, and we are sailing close to the wind on that one I think. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledGeordie Posted Saturday at 11:39 Share Posted Saturday at 11:39 4 minutes ago, Unbelievable said: Not really. If the rules at the time of takeover (105m loss over 3 years) were still in place we could spend, but since then new rules have been brought in to cap spending on players (wages and amortised fees) as a percentage of revenue, and we are sailing close to the wind on that one I think. Thanks 👍 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
manorpark Posted Saturday at 11:44 Share Posted Saturday at 11:44 10 minutes ago, ExiledGeordie said: Am I right in understanding that we are essentially paying for over spending early on following the takeover? As the 3 year period comes to an end in June we’re still sailing close to the line? Is that right? No, if these rules were continuing, then the £70M loss in our first post-takeover year would drop out of the equation (3 year cycle) being three years ago, so we would be fine. However, they have thought of a new way to stop us with their new "Squad Cost Ratio" rules !!! Their determination is impressive, I have to say. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUPERTOON Posted Saturday at 11:47 Share Posted Saturday at 11:47 2 minutes ago, manorpark said: No, if these rules were continuing, then the £70M loss in our first post-takeover year would drop out of the equation (3 year cycle) being three years ago, so we would be fine. However, they have thought of a new way to stop us with their new "Squad Cost Ratio" rules !!! Their determination is impressive, I have to say. We voted for the new squad cost rules I think. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now