PSR rules and the real KLD/KS masterclass

[Thunder Road]

Deliberately.

I agree with the finances being regulated but surely all newly promoted sides should get a bit of a saving grace period to allow them to catch up?

 

[Grumpy Old Man]

Have I read your posts incorrectly or could they spend £100m (not that they would) and depending on contract length only £25m could be counted against it, or would £61m be the total no matter the contract length...not including player sales or new commercial deals?

Assuming fours year contracrt, £25m.

 

[jaraarrow]

Did Ipswich not spend 150 million last season?

 

[Grumpy Old Man]

Did Ipswich not spend 150 million last season?

I thought it was around £100m. All spent on the wrong kind of player.

 

[jaraarrow]

But we expect revenues to go up by between £200-250m though? And whilst costs go up, we surely won't be going from circa £40m outgoings to £260m-£310m?

But wages will go up as well

 

[Fluffy]

transfers were spread over multiple years is my guess.

Did Ipswich not spend 150 million last season?

 

[Ron Swanson]

Assuming fours year contracrt, £25m.

Thanks, appreciate the response.

I know we're battling a lot of factors and somewhat of an unfair playing field but could it be argued our financial position is healthier than say Leeds or Burnley, or more so than Sheffield Utd's would have been owing to their current level of debt and spend (aware they also would have have more coming in), but if done right we could have more of a clean slate as long as we don't completely change our recruitment method.

 

[Grumpy Old Man]

transfers were spread over multiple years is my guess.

That's the standard accounting practice - amortise over the contract length (up to 5 years). The 5 year limit was introduced because Chelsea took the piss by dishing out 8 year contracts.

 

[Coeus]

Did Ipswich not spend 150 million last season?

They did, we have a lot more than 60m allowance.

 

[Grumpy Old Man]

Thanks, appreciate the response.

I know we're battling a lot of factors and somewhat of an unfair playing field but could it be argued our financial position is healthier than say Leeds or Burnley, or more so than Sheffield Utd's would have been owing to their current level of debt and spend (aware they also would have have more coming in), but if done right we could have more of a clean slate as long as we don't completely change our recruitment method.

We have more of a clean slate, and have the benefit of minimal losses (by Championship standards) brought forward. But we are desperately short of any PL experience - only Roberts and Mepham (assuming we sign him) have any.

 

[Keith S30S]

Oiur limit next season will be £61m, not £105m. It's a rolling three year calculation, and the first two are based on the Championship limit of £13m/season.

Yes but that's losses not overall expenditure. We will be generating a massive amount of cash compared to last season.

 

[Boris Bear]

Seen many on here often lament "why are we spending more" and the club has a clear strategy here is where it pays of.

PSR rules say a club cannot lose more than £105 million over 3 seasons.

Leeds (who are already about selling to buy) have lost over £90mill the last 2 seasons.

Burnley around £65mill

Our £18mill losses over two seasons SHOULD give us the ability to invest

Is that correct about Leeds and Burnley? They're only allowed to lose 39million over a rolling three year period (13m a year in other words) in the championship and therefore £61m loss limit in the case of Leeds.

 

[Grumpy Old Man]

Yes but that's losses not overall expenditure. We will be generating a massive amount of cash compared to last season.

Absolutely, but so will our costs. Average player pay will probably double or treble.

 

[Daniels]

Speakman won’t get a day off until the window closes. Gives me a headache just thinking about.

 

[Grumpy Old Man]

Is that correct about Leeds and Burnley? They're only allowed to lose 39million over a rolling three year period (13m a year in other words) in the championship and therefore £61m loss limit in the case of Leeds.

Leeds will have the same limit as us - 1 PL + Champ. Burnley get more because they only spent one season in the Champ. So they get £83m

 

[cluffy]

I’d be chuffed if we could bring two or three more academy lads through next season. Means more than fancy signings.
I just watched a vid of who we had in our last premier relegation season (N’Dong, Kone, Rodwell etc) and felt sick!
Probably best to sign nee bugger

 

[Lord Nigle]

Wouldn't selling Watson for £10m pure profit and then potentially Jobe add to that quite significantly?

Clarke’s sale too? I also hope we spend wisely and invest heavily in the SoL, AoL and infrastructure. This will provide a lasting legacy whilst investing in the club’s future

 

[Grumpy Old Man]

I’d be chuffed if we could bring two or three more academy lads through next season. Means more than fancy signings.
I just watched a vid of who we had in our last premier relegation season (N’Dong, Kone, Rodwell etc) and felt sick!
Probably best to sign nee bugger

Harder to do it now. They'd need to be Rooney/Gerrard/Owen level at that age.

Clarke’s sale too?

Didn't make much on Clarke once Levy got his slice. Probably paid for Wilson, and Enzo''s wages

 

[Turnip from the Tip]

I agree with the finances being regulated but surely all newly promoted sides should get a bit of a saving grace period to allow them to catch up?

They absolutely should and I think it’s something the newly appointed football regulator is going to look at, but as things stand they don’t.

 

[Boris Bear]

Leeds will have the same limit as us - 1 PL + Champ. Burnley get more because they only spent one season in the Champ. So they get £83m

I know...that's what I'm saying. To put it simply, they're allowed a 39m rolling three year loss plus 22m for each year in the EPL during the 3 year period.