Scoot Posted Monday at 21:02 Share Posted Monday at 21:02 Just now, Nucasol said: PSR superficially goes away because PIF companies can sponsor the shit out of us, inflating incomes into the Cartel 6 bracket. Exactly. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pancrate1892 Posted Monday at 22:08 Share Posted Monday at 22:08 1 hour ago, madras said: Villa have, Forest did. I had no idea Douglas luiz went....but who have forest sold? 7m for that dodgy keeper won't go far? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted Monday at 22:09 Share Posted Monday at 22:09 Just now, Pancrate1892 said: I had no idea Douglas luiz went....but who have forest sold? 7m for that dodgy keeper won't go far? Johnson last season, purely for FFP purposes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackie Broon Posted Monday at 23:04 Share Posted Monday at 23:04 2 hours ago, madras said: Villa have, Forest did. Villa seem to be heading for an Everton-like situation in a year or two. They lost £116m 22/23, their turnover £50m lower than ours and their wage to turnover ratio is like 95%. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBrownBottle Posted yesterday at 00:23 Share Posted yesterday at 00:23 5 hours ago, Sibierski said: 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. It cripples us, unless we can find another couple of hundred million per year quickly Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUPERTOON Posted yesterday at 08:41 Share Posted yesterday at 08:41 Chelsea just signed a £12 million per season training kit sponsor deal. We really need to do something similar. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Menace Posted yesterday at 08:43 Share Posted yesterday at 08:43 (edited) Boehly and co are labelled as clowns but they are finding every loophole and exploiting the shit out of it - maybe they're not as thick as people think eh Edited yesterday at 08:46 by Menace Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
r0cafella Posted yesterday at 08:47 Share Posted yesterday at 08:47 2 minutes ago, Menace said: Boehly and co are labelled as clowns but they are finding even loophole and exploiting the shit out of it - maybe they're not as thick as people think eh They aren’t thick at all. They obviously lack some sense and experience but ultimately they are haphazardly building a high quality squad full of young talent. Some will work out some won’t but that’s the nature of football. the biggest risk they have is they are all youth no experience which will cause issues Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezzle Posted yesterday at 08:47 Share Posted yesterday at 08:47 10 hours ago, Pancrate1892 said: I had no idea Douglas luiz went....but who have forest sold? 7m for that dodgy keeper won't go far? Niakhate and Mangala too for about £45m or something. Then theres Everton and Chelsea(stop laughing at the back) that had to as well Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turnbull2000 Posted yesterday at 08:58 Share Posted yesterday at 08:58 (edited) 16 minutes ago, SUPERTOON said: Chelsea just signed a £12 million per season training kit sponsor deal. We really need to do something similar. That's insane. Looks like the sort of dodgy company we'd expect for Chelsea as well. We haven't a hope of competing, have we. Even if we had an offer of £12m per season for training kit, no doubt the PL would deem it above market value and knock it back. Edited yesterday at 08:58 by Turnbull2000 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The College Dropout Posted yesterday at 09:41 Share Posted yesterday at 09:41 That rumour about 6 clubs needing to sell ended up being more true than not. Everton Chelsea Villa Forest Newcastle All of these clubs did business with at least 1 other club. Only Leicester of the clubs named didn't get involved or make a sale. But they did make £10m from their manager. IMO there's more truth in a lot of press news than fans like to think. Many fans believe if a transfer doesn't happen, it means the club was never interested, for example. When I think often clubs like to have a little sniff to see if the price is right or to gauge player interest. Sometimes agents talk up things but that's still something. Not to say believe everything or everything is concrete. But I refused to believe that initial story and only started to believe it when I realised we were definitely selling Minteh. And all the other teams have strong links of sales. I refused to believe the Gordon links but now I'm convinced there was something to that - even if it was just exploratory conversations. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
McCormick Posted yesterday at 09:43 Share Posted yesterday at 09:43 Didn’t Leicester sell Dewsburry-Hall to Chelsea? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The College Dropout Posted yesterday at 09:43 Share Posted yesterday at 09:43 10 hours ago, Jackie Broon said: Villa seem to be heading for an Everton-like situation in a year or two. They lost £116m 22/23, their turnover £50m lower than ours and their wage to turnover ratio is like 95%. We are in a similar boat to Villa. We both need to find an additional £100m in revenue per year to continue to compete at the top end with current rules. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
r0cafella Posted yesterday at 09:44 Share Posted yesterday at 09:44 Just now, The College Dropout said: We are in a similar boat to Villa. We both need to find an additional £100m in revenue per year to continue to compete at the top end with current rules. More. We need more. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The College Dropout Posted yesterday at 09:44 Share Posted yesterday at 09:44 Just now, McCormick said: Didn’t Leicester sell Dewsburry-Hall to Chelsea? Oh I missed that. I thought it didn't go through yet. So yeh - 6 out of 6 did business together. The rumour was 100% on the button. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackie Broon Posted yesterday at 09:51 Share Posted yesterday at 09:51 Just now, The College Dropout said: We are in a similar boat to Villa. We both need to find an additional £100m in revenue per year to continue to compete at the top end with current rules. We are but the difference is we have the backing of a state behind us, and higher turnover and lower wage bil. We have the potential to find that revenue, they probably don't. We're some way from bridging the financial gap to the big 6, but we're pulling clear of everyone else. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted yesterday at 09:54 Share Posted yesterday at 09:54 1 hour ago, Menace said: Boehly and co are labelled as clowns but they are finding every loophole and exploiting the shit out of it - maybe they're not as thick as people think eh Boehly is coming from the US where they are a lot less squeamish about sidelining the little clubs and supporting the rest of the league. Over there it's probably more reflective of their attitude towards money. If you have it, you can do what you like, if you don't tough luck and get out of the way. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiresias Posted yesterday at 09:59 Share Posted yesterday at 09:59 They clearly know what they are doing from a business side of things, I still think the long term contracts they've put a lot of the players on will come back to bite them if a lot of them continue to consistently underperform. If they keep chopping and changing managers as well they will have a few good seasons but nothing sustained. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The College Dropout Posted yesterday at 10:02 Share Posted yesterday at 10:02 8 minutes ago, Jackie Broon said: We are but the difference is we have the backing of a state behind us, and higher turnover and lower wage bil. We have the potential to find that revenue, they probably don't. We're some way from bridging the financial gap to the big 6, but we're pulling clear of everyone else. Under the current rules - it doesn't really matter that we are state-backed. We can't inflate sponsorships. Our revenues are 7th & 8th together. Ours is higher but not significantly so. Their wages are higher but not significantly so. Especially after Bruno, Joelintn & Isak deals. We are closer to Villa in revenue than Spurs. We are in the same boat friend. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
r0cafella Posted yesterday at 10:08 Share Posted yesterday at 10:08 (edited) 6 minutes ago, The College Dropout said: Under the current rules - it doesn't really matter that we are state-backed. We can't inflate sponsorships. Our revenues are 7th & 8th together. Ours is higher but not significantly so. Their wages are higher but not significantly so. Especially after Bruno, Joelintn & Isak deals. We are closer to Villa in revenue than Spurs. We are in the same boat friend. Exactly with related party transaction rules in place us being owner by PIF is heavily negated. What’s more as far as I’m aware the new squad cost rules have no provision for owner investment (it’s currently what? 33m per year? From a cursory glance it appears at minimum we are 200m per annum behind the smallest of the so so called big 6, and my question is where is that 200m per annum coming from? My guess would be smaller upticks in commercial revenue plus player sales. Our growth path will have to be organic due to the rules and this is extremely difficult as it will be extremely tough to be selling players whilst trying to become even more competitive. If someone has an alternative view I’d love to hear it. in addition this is all based upon those above us not growing, if they do we need to find more. To close the gap we have to outgrow them a ridiculously tough ask. Edited yesterday at 10:09 by r0cafella Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nucasol Posted yesterday at 10:13 Share Posted yesterday at 10:13 3 minutes ago, r0cafella said: Exactly with related party transaction rules in place us being owner by PIF is heavily negated. What’s more as far as I’m aware the new squad cost rules have no provision for owner investment (it’s currently what? 33m per year? From a cursory glance it appears at minimum we are 200m per annum behind the smallest of the so so called big 6, and my question is where is that 200m per annum coming from? My guess would be smaller upticks in commercial revenue plus player sales. Our growth path will have to be organic due to the rules and this is extremely difficult as it will be extremely tough to be selling players whilst trying to become even more competitive. If someone has an alternative view I’d love to hear it. in addition this is all based upon those above us not growing, if they do we need to find more. To close the gap we have to outgrow them a ridiculously tough ask. Biggest boost would be a new stadium with world class facilities meaning it could be used 365 days a year. That’s the route Spurs have gone down. Instead we’ve got the aging nostalgia-fest that doesn’t lend itself to that purpose. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
r0cafella Posted yesterday at 10:14 Share Posted yesterday at 10:14 Just now, Nucasol said: Biggest boost would be a new stadium with world class facilities meaning it could be used 365 days a year. That’s the route Spurs have gone down. Instead we’ve got the aging nostalgia-fest that doesn’t lend itself to that purpose. It is unfortunately it seems to face widespread opposition, any notion of moving is shot down. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Butcher Posted yesterday at 10:14 Share Posted yesterday at 10:14 Steveley said title challengers within 5-10 years, didn't she? Unless the rules change we're looking at decades like Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonBez comesock Posted yesterday at 10:18 Share Posted yesterday at 10:18 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted yesterday at 10:20 Share Posted yesterday at 10:20 4 minutes ago, The Butcher said: Steveley said title challengers within 5-10 years, didn't she? Unless the rules change we're looking at decades like Well we've already finished in the CL. 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