madras Posted Sunday at 12:53 Share Posted Sunday at 12:53 6 minutes ago, enthusiast said: Those fees were high because football club owners are daft cunts with no sense, as opposed to a bald-faced attempt to game the system like this shite with £19m academy players with zero games to their name, that's just straight out book-cooking that the legendary Serie A chairmen of the 90s would've been proud of. 19m academy player ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted Sunday at 12:53 Share Posted Sunday at 12:53 4 minutes ago, enthusiast said: Those fees were high because football club owners are daft cunts with no sense, as opposed to a bald-faced attempt to game the system like this shite with £19m academy players with zero games to their name, that's just straight out book-cooking that the legendary Serie A chairmen of the 90s would've been proud of. While that's true, it's also on the PL heads to have forced perfectly healthy clubs into these transactions just to maintain their preferred cartel hierarchy. It should be none of their business how we spend our money. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
r0cafella Posted Sunday at 12:58 Share Posted Sunday at 12:58 16 minutes ago, Andy said: Don't see how the PL could "adjust the fees" at their will, there is so much precedent for deals like this that it just isn't realistic that they could do that without it being a huge legal minefield, It's literally calling into question the integrity of the people making the deal. We all know there's some underhand stuff going on, but you simply can't prove fair market value when there's a history of players like Anthony moving for £80m or whatever it was. They can’t do that, they can’t just amend the rules as they see fit, they would be sued to the ground. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonas Posted Sunday at 12:59 Share Posted Sunday at 12:59 When there's a football regulator for better or worse it'll be a fair kop for this absolute mess they've made of things, let alone that the mess has been created for protectionist reasons Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiotes Witch Doctor Posted Sunday at 13:09 Share Posted Sunday at 13:09 Am I right or wrong in thinking once the PSR deadline passes tonight it starts another 3 year cycle which will enable us to spend some money? Or is that too simplistic? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
r0cafella Posted Sunday at 13:10 Share Posted Sunday at 13:10 Just now, Tiotes Witch Doctor said: Am I right or wrong in thinking once the PSR deadline passes tonight it starts another 3 year cycle which will enable us to spend some money? Or is that too simplistic? It’s a rolling cycle so the spending of 3 years ago drops off Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
enthusiast Posted Sunday at 13:11 Share Posted Sunday at 13:11 10 minutes ago, TRon said: While that's true, it's also on the PL heads to have forced perfectly healthy clubs into these transactions just to maintain their preferred cartel hierarchy. It should be none of their business how we spend our money. Absoltuely, tho my opinion is somewhere in the middle - it certainly is the league's business how clubs spend their money, and some regulation is needed both to maintain competitive balance and prevent a future of Man City steamrollering their way to 20 titles in a row, and to prevent clubs going pop because some mad cunt owner has racked up huge debts and got bored and fucked off.l or died and willed their money to their shitty offspring who don't give a shite about running a football club or whatever. Unfortunately because it's England and it's the 21st century, there's nobody in charge who is able/willing to come up with a solution that doesn't have a shitload of unintended consequences and ends up making everything worse. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NSG Posted Sunday at 13:12 Share Posted Sunday at 13:12 1 minute ago, Tiotes Witch Doctor said: Am I right or wrong in thinking once the PSR deadline passes tonight it starts another 3 year cycle which will enable us to spend some money? Or is that too simplistic? 21/22 will drop off so the 3 year cycle will be 22/23, 23/24 and now 24/25. We should be showing a profit in 23/24, and the assumption is that with the CL money, Adidas deal and other new commercial deals, that we should have a bit of room to spend a decent amount. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiotes Witch Doctor Posted Sunday at 13:14 Share Posted Sunday at 13:14 Was 21/22 where we spent the bulk of our money? Getting my years mixed up, thanks for the explanation. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Upthemags Posted Sunday at 13:15 Share Posted Sunday at 13:15 3 minutes ago, NSG said: 21/22 will drop off so the 3 year cycle will be 22/23, 23/24 and now 24/25. We should be showing a profit in 23/24, and the assumption is that with the CL money, Adidas deal and other new commercial deals, that we should have a bit of room to spend a decent amount. Have a feeling we'll spend more than many expect... Another spend now, pay later scenario perhaps Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonas Posted Sunday at 13:19 Share Posted Sunday at 13:19 45 minutes ago, TK-421 said: Sky reporter just saying that all of these deals still need to be ratified by the PL, and if the PL deem any of these deals not to be 'fair market value' and inflated to suit the PSR requirements, then they (PL) may adjust the fees in their reckonings. WTF... so where was this worry about inflated fees when Man City were spending £100m on Grealish, Arsenal around £100m on Rice, and Chel$ea £115m on Caicedo?? Or is it just a problem when its clubs the PL seemingly want to punish spending/reciving higher fees??? But yeah, lets scrutinise deals where clubs are trying to meets the rules, and when clubs do it, then they may still adjust them so they can punish those clubs?? Sorry if this has been discussed already, but just saw that mentioned on SSN. Sorry state of affairs when that seems entirely plausible in the current climate. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackie Broon Posted Sunday at 13:19 Share Posted Sunday at 13:19 Just now, Tiotes Witch Doctor said: Was 21/22 where we spent the bulk of our money? Getting my years mixed up, thanks for the explanation. Yes, that was the January when we bought Trippier, Wood, Bruno and Burn. But it doesn't really work that way in terms of FFP because fees are spread over 5 years. More important for us is that our revenue increased by £76m in 22/23. These sales will also create more headroom. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NSG Posted Sunday at 13:19 Share Posted Sunday at 13:19 5 minutes ago, Tiotes Witch Doctor said: Was 21/22 where we spent the bulk of our money? Getting my years mixed up, thanks for the explanation. 21/22 had Bruno, Trippier, Wood etc. Isak would have fallen into 22/23. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUHRLYASLEEVESUP Posted Sunday at 13:19 Share Posted Sunday at 13:19 6 minutes ago, enthusiast said: Absoltuely, tho my opinion is somewhere in the middle - it certainly is the league's business how clubs spend their money, and some regulation is needed both to maintain competitive balance and prevent a future of Man City steamrollering their way to 20 titles in a row, and to prevent clubs going pop because some mad cunt owner has racked up huge debts and got bored and fucked off.l or died and willed their money to their shitty offspring who don't give a shite about running a football club or whatever. Unfortunately because it's England and it's the 21st century, there's nobody in charge who is able/willing to come up with a solution that doesn't have a shitload of unintended consequences and ends up making everything worse. Is it too simplistic to cap spend as a %age of companies worth ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Optimistic Nut Posted Sunday at 13:21 Share Posted Sunday at 13:21 1 minute ago, NSG said: 21/22 had Bruno, Trippier, Wood etc. Isak would have fallen into 22/23. Willock £20m or so as well. Could be fun from here. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonas Posted Sunday at 13:24 Share Posted Sunday at 13:24 Spend limit rounded up to the nearest hundred of the red cartel - so within their reach but also within the reach of a Forest. Which is the sticking point as they only want themselves to be able to spend the top money. The two - limiting spending and protecting the cartel have no need whatsoever to be exclusive - if the stated purposes are genuine (which they aren't) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackie Broon Posted Sunday at 13:25 Share Posted Sunday at 13:25 (edited) 5 minutes ago, RUHRLYASLEEVESUP said: Is it too simplistic to cap spend as a %age of companies worth ? Yes because, like the current system, it would entrench the current hierarchy. There would never be an opportunity for other clubs to catch up with the big 6, the gap would just get wider and wider. If spending is capped it should be a level playing field where everyone can spend up to the same amount as the top club. Edited Sunday at 13:25 by Jackie Broon Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NSG Posted Sunday at 13:27 Share Posted Sunday at 13:27 (edited) 9 minutes ago, Optimistic Nut said: Willock £20m or so as well. Could be fun from here. Keep in mind that will be amortised over their contracts though, so there will still be spend for those players in 24/25 (except Wood). Edited Sunday at 13:31 by NSG Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gdm Posted Sunday at 13:32 Share Posted Sunday at 13:32 56 minutes ago, TK-421 said: Sky reporter just saying that all of these deals still need to be ratified by the PL, and if the PL deem any of these deals not to be 'fair market value' and inflated to suit the PSR requirements, then they (PL) may adjust the fees in their reckonings. WTF... so where was this worry about inflated fees when Man City were spending £100m on Grealish, Arsenal around £100m on Rice, and Chel$ea £115m on Caicedo?? Or is it just a problem when its clubs the PL seemingly want to punish spending/reciving higher fees??? But yeah, lets scrutinise deals where clubs are trying to meets the rules, and when clubs do it, then they may still adjust them so they can punish those clubs?? Sorry if this has been discussed already, but just saw that mentioned on SSN. If the premier league tried to adjust a transfer fee then shit will really hit the fan for them in terms of legal action. there is not a hope in hell they well say nah you are only getting £20m for minteh you failed PSR here’s a points deduction Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The College Dropout Posted Sunday at 13:32 Share Posted Sunday at 13:32 22 minutes ago, Tiotes Witch Doctor said: Am I right or wrong in thinking once the PSR deadline passes tonight it starts another 3 year cycle which will enable us to spend some money? Or is that too simplistic? It’s a rolling 3 years. We are rolling most of our costs from the last period to this period. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
aussiemag Posted Sunday at 13:32 Share Posted Sunday at 13:32 2 minutes ago, NSG said: Bear in mind that will be amortised over their contracts though, so there will still be spend for those players in 24/25 (except Wood). Still need to pay the wages and amortise the transfer fees for all business over the length of their initial contract. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The College Dropout Posted Sunday at 13:35 Share Posted Sunday at 13:35 Transfers are amortised over the length of the contract. So we are still paying for Bruno (amortisation reduced due to contract extension), Burn etc. What reduced amortisation is extending contracts. So you need long serving players. And also academy grads because there’s no amortisation cost. We can’t do that. So we need to increase revenues. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBrownBottle Posted Sunday at 13:39 Share Posted Sunday at 13:39 27 minutes ago, NSG said: 21/22 will drop off so the 3 year cycle will be 22/23, 23/24 and now 24/25. We should be showing a profit in 23/24, and the assumption is that with the CL money, Adidas deal and other new commercial deals, that we should have a bit of room to spend a decent amount. This season will not include the adidas deal Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keegans Export Posted Sunday at 13:45 Share Posted Sunday at 13:45 23/24 = CL money, SELA, sales of Minteh & Anderson 24/25 = Adidas, SELA Hopefully we can add at least one more substantial sponsorship deal for the coming season. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezzle Posted Sunday at 13:51 Share Posted Sunday at 13:51 9 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said: This season will not include the adidas deal It will include a month as they have sold a fuck load of gear the last three weeks so no chance we haven't started the deal this year. There's also said to be bonuses based on sales we might hit 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