Jump to content

Financial Fair Play / Profit & Sustainability


Mattoon

Recommended Posts

We should have freed up a whole bunch of wages too (if reported wages are true)?

 

Dummett 35k

Karius 10k

Anderson 30k

Ritchie 45k

Minteh 25k

Hendrick 35k

Hayden 22k

 

Possible:

Dubs 40k

Almiron 60k

Frazer 42k

 

Could be potentially looking at 340k+ gone per week? 

 

 

Edited by BlazeT44

Link to post
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, BlazeT44 said:

We should have freed up a whole bunch of wages too (if reported wages are true)?

 

Dummett 35k

Karius 10k

Anderson 30k

Ritchie 45k

Minteh 25k

Hendrick 35k

Hayden 22k

 

Possible:

Dubs 40k

Almiron 60k

Frazer 42k

 

Could be potentially looking at 340k+ gone per week? 

 

 

 

10 players for one week of a Casemiro. Quite frightening. Just shows how careful a club needs to be with its pay structure as it grows and aims to challenge the top of the divison.

Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, RUHRLYASLEEVESUP said:

Am I right in thinking this is the last year of PSR anyway ?

Anchoring (I will set someone up for a funny) being season 25/26 ? 


There’s a change to PSR being linked to a percentage of turnover, rather than losses of £105M over 3 years.

 

i believe the anchoring proposal was not voted in at the last PL owners meeting

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Ghandis Flip-Flop said:


There’s a change to PSR being linked to a percentage of turnover, rather than losses of £105M over 3 years.

 

i believe the anchoring proposal was not voted in at the last PL owners meeting

Does that potential change still only benefit the top 4/5?

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Weezertron said:

Does that potential change still only benefit the top 4/5?


Benefits all, just not Man City. Because I think they’re at the limit of the proposal, whilst others got some room to grow, and likes of us and Villa, plenty. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Ghandis Flip-Flop said:


There’s a change to PSR being linked to a percentage of turnover, rather than losses of £105M over 3 years.

 

i believe the anchoring proposal was not voted in at the last PL owners meeting

 

It's not rather, it's both percentage of turnover and allowable loses, mirroring the UEFA system.

Link to post
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Weezertron said:

Does that potential change still only benefit the top 4/5?

of course, every change benefits them or else things would be left well enough alone

 

 

Edited by Jonas

Link to post
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, RUHRLYASLEEVESUP said:

Am I right in thinking this is the last year of PSR anyway ?

Anchoring (I will set someone up for a funny) being season 25/26 ? 


It's only a matter of time now before the whole thing is changed I believe. More clubs are being affected and the noise is growing more each day. An early catalyst could be the Man Ciry case. It's well over a week since it was concluded, and if they win the case, then the change will be pretty immediate. 

 

 

Edited by et tu brute

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, et tu brute said:


It's only a matter of time now before the whole thing is changed I believe. More clubs are being affected and the noise is growing more each day. An early catalyst could be the Man Ciry case. It's well over a week since it was concluded, and if they win the case, then the change will be pretty immediate. 

 

 

 

It certainly will in relation to ATP rules, I’m surprised there’s been no leaks…….might still be a few weeks before a determination is made, not that it’ll be announced. If City wins the ATP rules they want to bring in won’t go ahead.

Link to post
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, et tu brute said:


It's only a matter of time now before the whole thing is changed I believe. More clubs are being affected and the noise is growing more each day. An early catalyst could be the Man Ciry case. It's well over a week since it was concluded, and if they win the case, then the change will be pretty immediate. 

 

 

 

They weren’t challenging the whole construct though, just the associated party transaction part of it

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, LFEE said:

 

Maguire is always absolutely spot on when he talks about FFP and PSR.

 

If you want a better set of rules for PSR, you must start by defining the problem you are trying to solve.

 

The current rules were designed to placate a small set of clubs from forming a breakaway league, they were not designed to promote fairness or sustainability.

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, LFEE said:

10 players for one week of a Casemiro. Quite frightening. Just shows how careful a club needs to be with its pay structure as it grows and aims to challenge the top of the divison.

Yet we are the only cunts having to sell people 

Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Boey_Jarton said:

Maguire is always absolutely spot on when he talks about FFP and PSR.

 

If you want a better set of rules for PSR, you must start by defining the problem you are trying to solve.

 

The current rules were designed to placate a small set of clubs from forming a breakaway league, they were not designed to promote fairness or sustainability.

 

 

 

 

Just like the Champions league and it's various formats was designed to stop an ESL........by being an ESL.

Link to post
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Ghandis Flip-Flop said:

They weren’t challenging the whole construct though, just the associated party transaction part of it


Once one part fails it open a massive gap. If one legal challenge is seen as non competitive then others will follow.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can anyone re-explain for a dummy how exactly the new PSR rules work, or where to find the info so I can read it myself? 
 

Sorry, I know it’s probably been explained hundreds of times in here already

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ghandis Flip-Flop said:

They weren’t challenging the whole construct though, just the associated party transaction part of it

 

That's all we'd need. Opens up so many avenues for us if they win that arbitration.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, Scoot said:

 

That's all we'd need. Opens up so many avenues for us if they win that arbitration.

PSR superficially goes away because PIF companies can sponsor the shit out of us, inflating incomes into the Cartel 6 bracket.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...