Financial Fair Play / Profit & Sustainability

[The College Dropout]

The sad fact is the PL 14 is the actual cartel against the rest of the football pyramid.  The PL keeps the revenues high and PSR keeps the costs down.  The red top cartel is supported by the rest and it used to include us.  

[Crimson Cardigan]

As insanely frustrating as all this is, is it not the case that pretty much everyone bar Man City is also at least somewhat hemmed in by PSR? Arsenal do not have 150M for Isak, Man U can’t buy a player in Jan, Barca are finally out of road with their leavers etc. the hope would be that if PSR starts biting the cartel 6 and big clubs abroad the rules will have to change.

[Pixelphish]

1 minute ago, Crimson Cardigan said:

As insanely frustrating as all this is, is it not the case that pretty much everyone bar Man City is also at least somewhat hemmed in by PSR? Arsenal do not have 150M for Isak, Man U can’t buy a player in Jan, Barca are finally out of road with their leavers etc. the hope would be that if PSR starts biting the cartel 6 and big clubs abroad the rules will have to change.

 

New rules will be anchored against 'historic achievement and standing'.

[andycap]

Psr at the minute only benefits city Liverpool and Chelsea. 

Already we're hearing arsenal spurs man utd struggling with funds already. 

It won't be long before change I'd of thought. 

If city were to spend all the cash they've not been using on building a new team the scousers will be unhappy. 

[Unbelievable]

38 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

Top 6 clubs still have the run of players in Europe beyond a few elite clubs. And PSR isn’t the reason they lose out to Real Madrid.  
 

PL buying power for the top 6 and most of the league still outstrips European competition. It just keeps costs down a little which is a bonus for owners. 
 

I don’t think English clubs not doing well in Europe matters.  I think English clubs have won 5 CLs since Istanbul.  Real Madrid alone have won 6. The PL is bigger than ever and RM will always be RM.  
 

Most PL clubs don’t want the competition that an upper limit would bring. Most PL clubs would be loved Forest to have gotten relegated.  Forest beat the system.  Spent their way to PL security. PL clubs want Ipswich and Southamptons.  Go up and go down. 
 

nothing of the magnitude we need.  We need to get to 400m revenue asap. 

 

It does and I think you underestimate the effect of English clubs being on the decline in European competitions. In 20/21 you had four semi finalists in the top two European competitions, in 21/22 this fell to 3, in 22/23 it was 1, and last year there were none. Just like Man U is no longer seen as a top tier club after a decade of steady decline, the same will happen to the PL if this persists. The very best players will choose to play in La Liga over the PL, results will suffer and before you know it the top six will be wondering whether these self imposed restrictions to stop the likes of us from competing are hurting them too.

 

 

[Unbelievable]

25 minutes ago, Pixelphish said:

 

New rules will be anchored against 'historic achievement and standing'.

 

Aye, there is a distinct possibility that any change will be even more anti-competitive. These (mostly American) hedge funds will stop at nothing to maximise their bottom line.

[Jackie Broon]

14 minutes ago, andycap said:

Psr at the minute only benefits city Liverpool and Chelsea. 

Already we're hearing arsenal spurs man utd struggling with funds already. 

It won't be long before change I'd of thought. 

If city were to spend all the cash they've not been using on building a new team the scousers will be unhappy. 

 

It benefits Man City too, the tribunal aside they're in the best position in terms of PSR, they've been able to game the system to put themselves ahead of everyone financially. And I don't think the other big 6 clubs are even that bothered about winning trophies provided that the big 6 is a closed shop.

 

[The College Dropout]

13 minutes ago, Unbelievable said:

 

It does and I think you underestimate the effect of English clubs being on the decline in European competitions. In 20/21 you had four semi finalists in the top two European competitions, in 21/22 this fell to 3, in 22/23 it was 1, and last year there were none. Just like Man U is no longer seen as a top tier club after a decade of steady decline, the same will happen to the PL if this persists. The very best players will choose to play in La Liga over the PL, results will suffer and before you know it the top six will be wondering whether these self imposed restrictions to stop the likes of us from competing are hurting them too.

 

 

Money talks.  
 

The very best have always picked Real and Barca over the top 6. But they can compete with the rest.  And because of their finances they can beat the rest more times.   
 

Non-elite CL sides are getting their best players picked up by Bournemouth and West Ham. It’s not an issue atm.  

[Yorkie]

4 hours ago, JonBez comesock said:

There are hundreds of good players out there in world football  (under the radar) if our scouting network is up to scratch 

 

Lots of clubs like Dortmund , Bayern , Two Red Bull Clubs , Brighton continue to find hidden gems. 
 

We need to buy them before they become household names. 
 

It’s our only way until we increase commercial revenue , Move ground and continuously qualify for one of the European competitions 

 

I agree, and I would add turning the academy into a national powerhouse into the list of things we need to do as well. Forcing clubs into becoming sustainable and being able to wipe their own face financially is objectively a good thing.

 

Howeve, the issue undermining the whole thing - and will keep us hammering our keyboards - is the fact that the burdens are so uneven. "Just find hidden gems!" said Chelsea, after spending a gazillion on repairing the mess made from their last gazillion spent. 

[TRon]

4 hours ago, JonBez comesock said:

There are hundreds of good players out there in world football  (under the radar) if our scouting network is up to scratch 

 

Lots of clubs like Dortmund , Bayern , Two Red Bull Clubs , Brighton continue to find hidden gems. 
 

We need to buy them before they become household names. 
 

It’s our only way until we increase commercial revenue , Move ground and continuously qualify for one of the European competitions 

 

 

 

 

 

Every single club in the world wants to find the hidden gems. They can't all find them. I suppose that is why we have hired Mitchell. Time will tell if he has got more about him than all the competition.

[Gawalls]

2 hours ago, Lotus said:

Think the PL needs an independent regulator who sets the rules and handles disputes, punishments, etc.

Who it would be to choose such a regulator I don’t know and how they could be kept free from influence of people with vested interests, don’t know that either.

 

They'd have to be idiots to take that job as get it rid nobody cares and get it wrong and you're hated, also they'd have to know nothing about Football.  So looking for Idiots that know nothing about football, all I can think of is Mackems.

[Gawalls]

29 minutes ago, Yorkie said:

 

I agree, and I would add turning the academy into a national powerhouse into the list of things we need to do as well. Forcing clubs into becoming sustainable and being able to wipe their own face financially is objectively a good thing.

 

Howeve, the issue undermining the whole thing - and will keep us hammering our keyboards - is the fact that the burdens are so uneven. "Just find hidden gems!" said Chelsea, after spending a gazillion on repairing the mess made from their last gazillion spent. 

The Acedemy is a massive part of the long term fix for me - create a new revenue stream at the very least and hopefully get new players come through.

[alexf]

It's so frustrating to know that even if we have an amazing second half of the season and finish in a champions league place, it's going to likely be even worse than last time.

 

We won't be able to spend, likely need to sell someone we don't want to lose, weakening the squad.

Also not being able to improve squad depth with players being even older will result in another fatigued, injury ravaged season where we can't even show our best selves in Europe.

[The College Dropout]

4 hours ago, andycap said:

Psr at the minute only benefits city Liverpool and Chelsea. 

Already we're hearing arsenal spurs man utd struggling with funds already. 

It won't be long before change I'd of thought. 

If city were to spend all the cash they've not been using on building a new team the scousers will be unhappy. 

Nah. It doesn't benefit Chelsea which is why they are doing all kinds of loopholes.

 

PSR is fine for the top 6. It gives them loads of wriggle room compared to the old system.

 

 

Edited Friday at 15:25 by The College Dropout

[The College Dropout]

23 hours ago, The College Dropout said:

 

 

 

 

 

If we qualify for Europe we really do need some major commercial deals. 

And this is why what happens off the pitch is as important as what happens on it.

 

We need +£100m ARR to appear asap.

[Ben]

Fuckin hell, what's the point of just existing ?

[huss9]

PSR will do what the post Heysel ban did in the 80s. Kill English dominance. 

 

 

[Jonas]

Holds back more clubs from improving themselves than it prevents from doing a Bury. Which was extremely rare in the previous 125years under previous rules.

Could easily have had rules that prevented that without making ambition illeagal and freezing pecking orders.

But if new rules don't benefit the already advantaged they don't happen.

[The College Dropout]

1 hour ago, huss9 said:

PSR will do what the post Heysel ban did in the 80s. Kill English dominance. 

 

 

People need to stop saying this. It won't.

 

The revenues of PL clubs are still considerably higher than other European leagues. West Ham wage bill is higher than every La Liga team except the big 3.

 

Our wage bill would be 3rd/4th in Serie A.

 

And at the very top end. Liverpool, Arsenal & Spurs do not aim to compete with Real Madrid. If Liverpool wanted to compete with Real Madrid they would pay TAA the comparable wages or close.

[The College Dropout]

These rules are only super bad for the 8 or so clubs in the red or close. And only 7 of them are in the division. The rest are happy to suppress wages and fees. While being way too rich for every other league in Europe.

[The College Dropout]

Slightly broader perspective - Spanish financial rules might make Dani Olmo a free agent.  The PL masses are fine.  

[Decky]

How are we just constantly being held back by PSR, at what point are we able to actually spend again? Assuming we gave Forest about £20m for Vlachodimos, we basically broke even for transfers last summer, but Anderson was pure profit and Minteh was about £24m profit. We've made money from PL tv rights and we just signed a big deal with Adidas but we're still probably having to sell someone to keep ourselves right? 

When PIF came in we spent a decent bit on Isak, Botman, Bruno, Tonali, Barnes. But that kinda big spending was a year and a half ago, are we just fucked until the end of a full 3 year cycle? The rules really are ridiculous. We should demand no less than £150m for Isak from any of these top 6 bastards.  We're completely hamstrung by rules that are made to keep them at the top, don't do them a single favour ever under any circumstance. 

[Stifler]

7 minutes ago, Jonas said:

Holds back more clubs from improving themselves than it prevents from doing a Bury. Which was extremely rare in the previous 125years under previous rules.

Could easily have had rules that prevented that without making ambition illeagal and freezing pecking orders.

But if new rules don't benefit the already advantaged they don't happen.

No former Premier League club has went out of businesses. Wimbledon are the closest example, but they were bought out, and rules have been put in place now to prevent a relocation similar to theirs from happening again.

The biggest threat to have happened to EFL clubs is the ITV Digital collapse.

In Premier League terms, Portsmouth, which are used to argue for the reasons why we have PSR were both undone by interest free ownership loans that were called in. These interest free ownership loans were not subjected to restrictions under FFP or PSR, until Man City won their case a couple of months ago.

As for Leeds, a big bulk of their debt was owed to HMRC, so you would just assume that FFP and PSR rules would rule out any debt owed to HMRC wouldn’t you?

 

As a matter of fact the Premier League never adopted any FFP or PSR rules until 2013, 10 years after Leeds’ financial woes started, and 3 years after Portsmouth went into administration, but just 1 year after Man City won their 1st title.

[Decky]

If you can provide guarantees that the club will be financially safe then an owner should be able to invest what they want. A prime example being an owner just giving their club money that isn't a loan and has no repercussions for the club in years to come.

 

Clubs are businesses, finishing in European spots and winning trophies boosts its profile, generates more money, and leaves the business with more value for the owner. In what other industry would there be rules preventing a business owner from growing their business like this?

 

I really long for the day a club has the balls to take these rules makers to court over the legality of the rules because they're the most blatant example of anti-competitive corruption you're ever likely to see. 

 

 

Edited Friday at 17:31 by Decky

[The College Dropout]

35 minutes ago, Decky said:

How are we just constantly being held back by PSR, at what point are we able to actually spend again? Assuming we gave Forest about £20m for Vlachodimos, we basically broke even for transfers last summer, but Anderson was pure profit and Minteh was about £24m profit. We've made money from PL tv rights and we just signed a big deal with Adidas but we're still probably having to sell someone to keep ourselves right? 

When PIF came in we spent a decent bit on Isak, Botman, Bruno, Tonali, Barnes. But that kinda big spending was a year and a half ago, are we just fucked until the end of a full 3 year cycle? The rules really are ridiculous. We should demand no less than £150m for Isak from any of these top 6 bastards.  We're completely hamstrung by rules that are made to keep them at the top, don't do them a single favour ever under any circumstance. 

No - the 3 years don't matter that much. The costs are spread out so if you have a big issue in one 3-year period you will have a big issue in the next rolling period too. Amortisation and wages carry over year-to-year.

 

The only way to get back in the green is to heavily increase revenues or heavily reduce costs (wages and high amortised players). Everton & Wolves have been cost reducing for years because the salaries were at a certain point that's too high.

 

We paid decent wages pre-takeover (top 10 IIRC). Since then we've added Trippier, Isak, Gordon, Bruno, Tonali & Joelinton on BIG salaries. Players like Wilson and Schar would've been on v. decent wage to start.

 

 

Edited Friday at 17:55 by The College Dropout