dunno. I think the 70% of revenue severely restricts smaller clubs who need to grow revenue just to keep up with wages never mind anything else. the -105mil looks clubs be propped up by owners and just scrape by. when clubs can make up revenue from nowhere its not going to make any difference to the top clubs and the likes of Newcastle who will just be held back for a few years until they artificially hit a billion in revenue or whatever number they see as being dominant.
It's not a helpful answer, but the more restrictive one is whichever a club is closer to breaking. In principle however, I'd say the £105m loss limit will be largely irrelevant to clubs that obey the squad cost limit. With both rules combined a team with ~£120m turnover could spend (without player sales) £102m on first team costs (85% of turnover), leaving £53m in the budget for all other psr spending (allowing a £35m loss per season). I suspect most clubs could operate fairly comfortably within that ~£50m limit if they tried (bearing in mind that not all spending counts towards the psr limit anyway). And obviously, the more revenue you have the less restrictive it will be (and also if you qualify for Europe and have the lower 70% limit). As an example, Forest last season had revenues of ~£155m (excluding player sales), a wage spend of ~£145m and amortization costs of ~£40m. The amortization costs will be almost entirely on the first team, but the wage is for all employees so if we estimate that 80% of it is for the first team/coaching staff (as that's a rule of thumb I see lots of the internet accounting people use) you'd get a first team wage + transfer spend of ~£156m. Their 85% limit on the £155m revenues would be £131m, so sticking to that limit would be a £25m drop in spending. Seeing as they breached the loss limit by £34.5m, the wage/transfer savings for a single season alone would take care of 70% of the unallowable losses over the 3 year period. Running the same numbers for Everton's £19.5m 21/22 breach, they'd have saved ~£44m using the 85% limit in the 21/22 season, more than making up the unallowed losses for the period. And that's for just 1 season in each case. Multiply it by 3 seasons and it's difficult to see how anyone could breach the loss limit while staying within the squad cost limit. The only exception I can think of is a newly promoted team going all out to try to stay up following heavy losses in the championship to get promoted in the first place, like forest. However, that could be solved by just giving newly promoted teams the same £105m limit as eveyone else, which I don't think many people would oppose
So you are saying PSR includes more types of spending than the newer system? Your end conclusion seems similar to mine anyway in that the new system will likely result in a tighter spend.
The new limit will apparently only apply to the "wage bill for the first team and its coaching staff, plus the amortised costs of their transfer fees and all agents’ fees" according to the reports. So yes, the loss limit stuff includes costs that wouldn't fall under the squad cost limit (e.g. paying employees that aren't part of the first team or coaching staff). So they are slightly different overall, and for that reason the new uefa rules (which the premier league are copying) also includes both the 70% squad cost limit and a loss limit of €60m (or €90m for clubs in "good financial standing"). And yes, my thoughts are basically the same as yours. I was just trying to provide some numbers to illustrate the point rather than disagreeing with you
Everton lodge appeal against second points deduction Predictable as f**k. Watch it get reduced to 1 point, the bunch of shithouses.
Until a commission increases a punishment for a frivolous appeal, there’s no incentive for clubs to not appeal. Why shouldn’t Everton appeal? Even if they are bang to rights the worst that seems to happen at the moment is the punishment stays the same, and there’s a chance they can decrease it. You almost never hear of clubs not appealing punishments these days. Can only think of a couple of examples.
The loan has been extended which MSP have said for months they don’t mind doing. The media just trying to create more drama.
Don't mind me, I'm just getting ready for the Everton fury when they discover that Chelsea have sold their 2 hotels to another Boelhy company to pass PSR. Oh, and because Chelsea FC are the management firm, they'll continue to receive the hotel revenues for PSR. When London is disgustingly over gorged financially, then, financial rules for the rest of us should not exist when the price of a London hotel is vastly inflated.
The thing that puzzles me about Chelsea is the Roman debt, didnt they owe him about a billion quid? Did he just scrap the debt? Imagine having a debt like that scrfapped and them ending up back in all kinds of debt One dodgy corrupt club that is.
It’s no different to other clubs though is it really? Off the top of my head you can add Man City and Liverpool as 2 hugely corrupt and cheating clubs? There’ll be more clubs in this league that cheat than don’t.
You might have missed it, but Russia invaded Ukraine a couple of years ago so Roman's UK assets were all taken off him.
But the debt, what happened to it? Thats my point? He was apparently willing to write it off to get rid of the club???
