Financial Fair Play / Profit & Sustainability

[PauloGeordio]

3 minutes ago, Conjo said:

Would it fix shit if PSR only applied to clubs that are unable to provide a blank parent company or bank guarantee covering all  losses? 

But it’s not broken as you know. Working perfectly fine. But yes.

 

 

Edited August 18, 2025 by PauloGeordio

[Abacus]

12 minutes ago, Conjo said:

Would it fix shit if PSR only applied to clubs that are unable to provide a blank parent company or bank guarantee covering all  losses? 

 

It would from our perspective - the risk of bankruptcy goes which is it's supposed purpose.

 

But it wouldn't get voted in because some clubs who can't afford that blank cheque would then never be able to compete and are quite happy that there are limits, even if they will always be feeder clubs.

 

And some are determined not to allow others to compete hence the rushed rules to stop us taking away their champions league spots.

 

I'm more sympathetic to the first group than the second, even if being a perpetual also ran isn't much fun.

 

The thing is, the fans of those clubs should realise there will never be any chance to compete and even if they got a dream rich investor they still wouldn't be allowed to.

[Stifler]

49 minutes ago, gdm said:

 

Why do people fall for his stick?

They long ago confirmed their relationship with us ended, and it’s been well reported that their parent company was rather dodgy and been banned from operating within the U.K.

[gdm]

8 minutes ago, Stifler said:

Why do people fall for his stick?

They long ago confirmed their relationship with us ended, and it’s been well reported that their parent company was rather dodgy and been banned from operating within the U.K.

Their logo was still on our website a couple weeks ago. No one is falling for stick (sic)

[Shak]

1 minute ago, gdm said:

Their logo was still on our website a couple weeks ago. No one is falling for stick (sic)

Aye, he’s got the wrong end of the schtick there.

[Tsunami]

Lifted this from Facebook, gotta agree and well put:   

Your whole argument is built on selective memory and flawed logic. Clubs like Villa and Newcastle aren’t struggling because they’re reckless, they’re being limited by a rules designed to preserve the status quo. PSR doesn’t reward good management; it rewards historical advantage. The clubs at the top got there by spending freely before these rules existed, and now they preach restraint to everyone else. That’s not wisdom; it’s hypocrisy.

“Sell to buy” sounds noble until you realise the market doesn’t value players equally. Selling a fringe player from a legacy club can fund a marquee signing. Selling a starter from a rising club barely covers a loan. The idea that success is just about selling well ignores the reality that some clubs are allowed to build value while others are punished for trying.

The wage and agent fee comparisons; they’re irrelevant without context. Spending similar amounts doesn’t mean equal footing when one club has a squad full of internationals and the other is still clawing its way into Europe. The difference isn’t how well they run it’s how long they’ve been allowed to run without shackles.

PSR isn’t about sustainability. It’s about locking in advantage and calling it fair play. Let’s be honest: Arsenal, Chelsea, Spurs, United, Liverpool and City, they all built revenues during unregulated spending. They didn’t “sell to buy” their way to the top. They spent to dominate then the rules changed.

…You don’t get to moralise about restraint when your rise was built on freedom. That’s not financial wisdom, it’s hypocrisy.

[The Prophet]

Yep.

[TheBrownBottle]

On 20/08/2025 at 06:54, The Prophet said:

Yep.

Tbf we could’ve doubled Isak’s salary and it wouldn’t have moved our PSR headroom 

[Kanj]

If only we could have Black&WhiteCo acquire players and then send them to an affiliate club then to us as said player is a long term target. 

[healthyaddiction]

3 hours ago, TheBrownBottle said:

Tbf we could’ve doubled Isak’s salary and it wouldn’t have moved our PSR headroom 

Assuming all the other players were happy to sit on their current pay levels with one guy making twice what everyone else is.

[Toonpack]

4 hours ago, TheBrownBottle said:

Tbf we could’ve doubled Isak’s salary and it wouldn’t have moved our PSR headroom 

 

I fail to see how, we would cover around £50/60k a week through his re-amortisised contract but where's the other £50-£75k coming from ?

 

Then there's Bruno's supposed highest earner clause, all this at a time when we were scrambling and had to sell Anderson/Minteh.

 

There's also the point that why on earth would you increase someones wages who was only one third of a way into their contract, a contract that had trippled their wages when they signed.

 

[TheBrownBottle]

38 minutes ago, Toonpack said:

 

I fail to see how, we would cover around £50/60k a week through his re-amortisised contract but where's the other £50-£75k coming from ?

 

Then there's Bruno's supposed highest earner clause, all this at a time when we were scrambling and had to sell Anderson/Minteh.

 

There's also the point that why on earth would you increase someones wages who was only one third of a way into their contract, a contract that had trippled their wages when they signed.

 

I worked it out a month or so ago on a previous post, but we could’ve doubled his salary at zero change to PSR

 

Footballers’ contracts are regularly changed with many years left depending on performance - it’s the norm in the industry

 

51 minutes ago, healthyaddiction said:

Assuming all the other players were happy to sit on their current pay levels with one guy making twice what everyone else is.

Centre forwards who score lots of goals usually are the highest paid player at a club.  If they want what he would have been earning, then change position and find the net.  The match on Saturday served as a reminder of the difference a proper no.9 makes 

[healthyaddiction]

Just now, TheBrownBottle said:

I worked it out a month or so ago on a previous post, but we could’ve doubled his salary at zero change to PSR

 

Footballers’ contracts are regularly changed with many years left depending on performance - it’s the norm in the industry

 

Centre forwards who score lots of goals usually are the highest paid player at a club.  If they want what he would have been earning, then change position and find the net.  The match on Saturday served as a reminder of the difference a proper no.9 makes 

Yeah, but he would be earning massively more than anyone else. It would cause problems and would raise every single other players contract demands when it gets to renewal. It isn't just as simple as "we can afford it".

[Sibierski]

It’s the wage to turnover that would’ve been the issue with the Isak big new contract last summer, with Bruno clause, then the signings this summer maybe wanting £20k+ more each as they see the top end wage. All has a knock on, and would mean maybe needing to sell a higher earner to bring it down (which then weakens the XI/Squad). 

[kingxlnc]

This is the first summer where it’s been absolutely blatantly obvious the injustice of this system and how it hugely benefits the cartel and massively affects anyone else. Undeniably so. Villa Forest NUFC and anyone else ambitious enough should really challenge it openly this year, just like they brought in APT mid season. All we need is 7 clubs. 
 

Leeds and Sunderland may think they’re big clubs (especially given how much they’ve spent) and West Ham and Everton as traditional bigger more PL established club. Could be worth challenging the rules together this season.

The rest are happy to be on the gravy train. 

[Unbelievable]

55 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

I worked it out a month or so ago on a previous post, but we could’ve doubled his salary at zero change to PSR

 

Footballers’ contracts are regularly changed with many years left depending on performance - it’s the norm in the industry

 

Centre forwards who score lots of goals usually are the highest paid player at a club.  If they want what he would have been earning, then change position and find the net.  The match on Saturday served as a reminder of the difference a proper no.9 makes 

I’d live to see that calculation, because purely doubling one player’s wages without any other significant changes to e.g. contract length would certainly affect our PSR position. You can’t simply increase your yearly outgoings by 4-5m without repercussions to SQR and the bottom line.

[The College Dropout]

@Unbelievable I think he told me a few million in additional sponsorship per year wouldn’t move the needle on our PSR position.  But also seems to think a net £2m-3m added to amortisation with a contract extension would’ve been implausible. 
 

If it wasn’t him I apologise. But if it was him his positions don’t make logical sense and not worth debating. He’ll defend any position the club takes. 

 

 

Edited August 21, 2025 by The College Dropout

[TRon]

2 hours ago, TheBrownBottle said:

I worked it out a month or so ago on a previous post, but we could’ve doubled his salary at zero change to PSR

 

Footballers’ contracts are regularly changed with many years left depending on performance - it’s the norm in the industry

 

Centre forwards who score lots of goals usually are the highest paid player at a club.  If they want what he would have been earning, then change position and find the net.  The match on Saturday served as a reminder of the difference a proper no.9 makes 

 

 

I said this a few times when it's been brought up that if Isak is given a massive pay rise then every player will be demanding one. On what basis? Isak is a genuinely world class talent who is attracting superclub attention. We might love Dan Burn but Barcelona or Man City aren't going to be offering him £150k/week any time soon. 

 

Tonali is the only other player on our books comparable to Isak, but other than those two, I really don't see any other club offering bank busting wages to any of our players. We should be able to accomodate one superstar player based on his value. 

[madras]

1 hour ago, TRon said:

 

 

I said this a few times when it's been brought up that if Isak is given a massive pay rise then every player will be demanding one. On what basis? Isak is a genuinely world class talent who is attracting superclub attention. We might love Dan Burn but Barcelona or Man City aren't going to be offering him £150k/week any time soon. 

 

Tonali is the only other player on our books comparable to Isak, but other than those two, I really don't see any other club offering bank busting wages to any of our players. We should be able to accomodate one superstar player based on his value. 

Do we up it in a seasons time if he has another good season ?

[The College Dropout]

Fundamentally if you don’t offer your top talent the wages they deserve they will leave. 
 

It shouldn’t happen like this though. 

[Mattoon]

On 19/08/2025 at 15:50, Tsunami said:

Lifted this from Facebook, gotta agree and well put:   

Your whole argument is built on selective memory and flawed logic. Clubs like Villa and Newcastle aren’t struggling because they’re reckless, they’re being limited by a rules designed to preserve the status quo. PSR doesn’t reward good management; it rewards historical advantage. The clubs at the top got there by spending freely before these rules existed, and now they preach restraint to everyone else. That’s not wisdom; it’s hypocrisy.

“Sell to buy” sounds noble until you realise the market doesn’t value players equally. Selling a fringe player from a legacy club can fund a marquee signing. Selling a starter from a rising club barely covers a loan. The idea that success is just about selling well ignores the reality that some clubs are allowed to build value while others are punished for trying.

The wage and agent fee comparisons; they’re irrelevant without context. Spending similar amounts doesn’t mean equal footing when one club has a squad full of internationals and the other is still clawing its way into Europe. The difference isn’t how well they run it’s how long they’ve been allowed to run without shackles.

PSR isn’t about sustainability. It’s about locking in advantage and calling it fair play. Let’s be honest: Arsenal, Chelsea, Spurs, United, Liverpool and City, they all built revenues during unregulated spending. They didn’t “sell to buy” their way to the top. They spent to dominate then the rules changed.

…You don’t get to moralise about restraint when your rise was built on freedom. That’s not financial wisdom, it’s hypocrisy.

 

Very well put and I'd venture to add to that, the indication that astute player trading can get you on equal footing is also a fallacy, sure it can get you a bump in PSR headroom in the short term but ultimately to be able to compete financially at the top table the only route is through sponsorships.

 

You need sponsorships to keep the finances healthy enough to compete for player trading and wage structures but in order to do that you need to have a sustained level of success which in turn requires a healthy spend on the players to keep you there, which in turn requires sponsorships, that's why it's an unbreakable 6.

[madras]

35 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

Fundamentally if you don’t offer your top talent the wages they deserve they will leave. 
 

It shouldn’t happen like this though. 

But most know it won't be every season or maybe even half way through a contract but more. Liverpool made Salah and Van Dick wait until their contracts were nearly done. Has Mac Allister got a new contract as he has 3 yrs left ?

 

 

[Unbelievable]

3 hours ago, The College Dropout said:

@Unbelievable I think he told me a few million in additional sponsorship per year wouldn’t move the needle on our PSR position.  But also seems to think a net £2m-3m added to amortisation with a contract extension would’ve been implausible. 
 

If it wasn’t him I apologise. But if it was him his positions don’t make logical sense and not worth debating. He’ll defend any position the club takes. 

 

 

 

I have no idea what you’re on about, but that is sadly not uncommon.

[Unbelievable]

49 minutes ago, madras said:

But most know it won't be every season or maybe even half way through a contract but more. Liverpool made Salah and Van Dick wait until their contracts were nearly done. Has Mac Allister got a new contract as he has 3 yrs left ?

 

 

Exactly. We paid 60m for Isak, a club record and an amount many a pundit believed was far too much for the player we were getting, unproven at the highest level and coming off a mediocre season. We also gave that player a wage at or near the top of our wage structure. The player and his agent consciously signed a SIX year deal on those financial terms. Yet after not even two years they apparently started agitating for more, and by the start of year four, halfway in the contract they were initially happen to sign, the player has downed tools in a manner seldom seen in professional football. 

The backdrop to all this is that the summer where Mitchell told Isak a new contract would have to wait, we had to panic sell Anderson and Minteh not to fall foul to PSR rules. We had very little room to go and offer existing players huge wage bumps, especially one only a third of the way in his contract. From a business perspective it was an understandable decision to postpone discussions. It’s only after Liverpool turned Isak’s head early summer when this was suddenly brought up as justification for Isak’s horrible behaviour. Some coincidence that.

 

The fault for all of this lies with none other than Alexander Isak and his agent. Had Liverpool never come knocking, or had they an ounce of decency and patience, they could have negotiated an improved contract this summer instead of doing what they did. Which lends me to believe that what’s happened this summer would have happened regardless, sooner or later. We’re simply dealing with a pair of cunts, sadly.

 

 

Edited August 21, 2025 by Unbelievable

[The College Dropout]

5 minutes ago, madras said:

But most know it won't be every season or maybe even half way through a contract but more. Liverpool made Salah and Van Dick wait until their contracts were nearly done. Has Mac Allister got a new contract as he has 3 yrs left ?

 

 

Salah joined in 2017 on a 5-year deal. He secured a new contract in 2018 after scoring 30+ goals in his first season and playing at a world-class level. Assume his pay reflected his standing in the game. 

 

VVD & Salah were both exploring leaving on a free and going elsewhere for megabucks; it wasn't by choice that their contracts got so close to expiring. Carragher was calling it a disaster that they let 3 of their best players enter the last 12 months of their contract and he's right. 

 

Mitchell overleveraged the fact that Isak had 4 years left on his deal, which is a major contributing factor to the current situation. That much is undeniable imo.