Financial Fair Play / Profit & Sustainability

[The College Dropout]

2 minutes ago, Abacus said:

PSR should be better for us than SCR next season, you'd expect. And by better, I mean slightly less rubbish.

 

Anyway, get the new stadium announced along with a new "official stadium building and legal objections partner".

Still have to comply with uefa limits if we qualify for Europe.  Doesn’t make a big difference

[Paully]

17 minutes ago, ToonAbroad said:

I just don't get why the limit is not at least increased in line with inflation compared to the 105m when it was implemented, whilst they flesh out any bigger changes to the system.

 

*edit* - well, obviously I do know why they don't want to do this...

 

 

 

 

Exactly this - perfect example - my ticket for the final in the SAME block was £77 in 2023 and is now £108!

[timeEd32]

14 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

Still have to comply with uefa limits if we qualify for Europe.  Doesn’t make a big difference

 

More leeway with UEFA's rules though. I'd describe this as moderately good news.

[The College Dropout]

People say that. UEFA banned Milan from the Europa league due to breaches.  

[JonBez comesock]

22 minutes ago, Abacus said:

PSR should be better for us than SCR next season, you'd expect. And by better, I mean slightly less rubbish.

 

Anyway, get the new stadium announced along with a new "official stadium building and legal objections partner".

This 

[timeEd32]

32 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

People say that. UEFA banned Milan from the Europa league due to breaches.  

 

They had at least three consecutive years of breaking the loss limit rules. 

 

If we're anywhere between 70-79% on the cost control ratio then as first time offenders we'd pay a modest fine. Now we may not want to do that, in which case we need to get below 70%, but at least the option is there.

[The College Dropout]

11 minutes ago, timeEd32 said:

 

They had at least three consecutive years of breaking the loss limit rules. 

 

If we're anywhere between 70-79% on the cost control ratio then as first time offenders we'd pay a modest fine. Now we may not want to do that, in which case we need to get below 70%, but at least the option is there.

Did they? That’s not what I gathered when I read on it but could be wrong. 

[TRon]

1 hour ago, sushimonster85 said:

 

Do people actually think PSR, and the effect it has on out ability to spend, is actually just made up and we use it as an excuse for not spending? 

 

No, although if PIF are reduced to running it purely as a business, it's not the worst thing.

[Jackie Broon]

2 hours ago, sushimonster85 said:

 

Do people actually think PSR, and the effect it has on out ability to spend, is actually just made up and we use it as an excuse for not spending? 

 

Yes and no. We were definitely up against it last season and probably right on the limit the season before.

 

But I don't think we are as hampered by PSR this season as has been made out. People in the club clearly felt that a 'Newcastle tax' was being applied when we tried to sign anyone because it was assumed that we had unlimited money to spend. I think they have been playing up the hampered by PSR message this season because of that.

[huss9]

3 hours ago, JT24 said:

If anything it’s good news for Eales and Mitchell. 
 

Excuses for a poor summer are primed and ready to go. 

bollox.

[Bimpy474]

Don't worry guys, we're damaged goods still. The shadow of Ashley still looms at times, some just can't see the change that's happened.

Any negativity is because.......enter any Ashley excuse......we'll get over that eventually.