PSR whinging

[Redandwhitedust]

We are basically where we were when I first went to Roker in the 68-69 season because we have been badly ran then for 90% of the time ever since. We now seem to have a plan. We never seemed to have one before.

Call me unambitious. But I just want my lad to watch his team at the top level without the drama ive had! (Poor lad started taking an interest in L1 - hes only every seen us improve!)

While no club has a right to be in the top flight, we have the support, the stadium and the stature to be one. That's what I expect from us, and if we yoyo a bit im ok with that. I think.

What scares me is the club spending beyond its means, in a world of spiralling transfer fees, and plummeting like we did. Like Portsmouth did, like Luton did.

Play the long game, invest and sell wisely and build the club up. Thats all I ask

 

[Georgewhitt]

Play the long game, invest and sell wisely and build the club up. Thats all I ask

I think that's exactly what you have got marra.

 

[FLATHEED]

Hammers still whinging as well.

You must be logged on to see external links

 

[ATTACK ATTACK ATTACK]

Isn't the psr changing to the European model shortly? Or did I imagine that.
The top teams are always going to have an advantage though, and removing psr wouldn't necessarily change that. Man United for example still have a greater pull than Newcastle, even without European football and lower wages offered. It's also there to in theory ensure our clubs dont go bust from over reaching.

No you didn't imagine it as I've posted it a few times on here now. It's going to be Squad Cost Ratio, Thor'd below from an old post of mine.

It seems many are not aware that PSR may not be a thing after next season as the Premier League are looking at Squad Cost Ratio (SCR). The Premier League clubs had a vote last season and it's similar to what clubs in Europe have to abide to with UEFA regulations (FFP) and there's no doubt PSR won't be a thing in coming seasons anyway. They also won't know the clubs in Europe have to abide by both rules of the Premier League and UEFA and UEFA are stricter with the 70% SCR than teams not in Europe who'd have 85% from the Premier League.

You must be logged on to see media items

You must be logged on to see external links

SCR would also feature "anchoring", limiting how much clubs could spend on player wages and transfers to five times the revenue the league's bottom club receives in broadcast and prize money.

For example, Sheffield United received £110m last season. That means, under SCR, the spending limit would be five times £110m so £550m.
The PFA have also threatened legal action if the Premier League adopts "anchoring" because they believe it is anti-competitive and effectively a salary cap.

 

[CherryHenry]

Becos those just outside last years top 4 are ran well on the pitch but badly off it.
Villas frinstance old ground needs expanding and it’s hospitality too to bring mor cash in, their 90% apparently wages-turnover ratio is lunacy.
Spurs now bring in the most cash per match in the world game due to their new stadium. They’ll have to up their recruit value until they can truly splash the cash long term.
Brighton and Brentford are at their peak imho. Stadiums can’t be expanded but their recruitments been spot on.
Everton long term will be back up there if they learn to recruit well and pay the stadium off.
West Ham’s next owners will be in an ideal situation to push for the top 4 if they learn everyone else’s lessons.

Utd are the biggest club in England, Spurs have the highest earning stadium yet they were both laughing stocks last season. Owt can happen. It’ll nivver gan back to the pre 70s days when there were always 8-10 genuine title contenders preseason I’ll grant you that but the top 4 aren’t set in stone as you seem to be saying.

On and off field nous can still get half the clubs in the country into the top half of the PL then owt can happen. Look at where smaller clubs like Brighton, Bournemouth, Burnley, Fulham, and Brentford have been in the last 30yrs or so. If they can do it then Boro, Norwich, Ipswich, WBA, Cov, Sheff We’d, Sheff Utd, Charlton, Stoke, Blackburn, Bolton, Brum, QPR etc can anarl. The pictures not as bleak as you paint it.

The stadium thing is spot on.

It seems like a lifetime ago that we had to bite the bullet and move to The Emirates. But the club saw the opportunity for the extra income and it's worked out. Had to cut our cloth accordingly and flog top players to help with the payments and Wenger was a stickler for the rules and made sure we stayed within FFP. But as the payments became more manageable there was less need for high profile player sales and the transfer budget became a bit bigger - mind Wenger treated it like his own money and still wouldn't spend . I believe there's still some stadium debt but there are strong rumours we may be looking at expanding the capacity. More income for Arteta to spend on Chelsea rejects.

 

[Stormo]

You must be logged on to see external links

This is not ‘totally’ aimed at the skunks bleating about ‘Profit and Sustainability Rules’ although they were VERY happy at being “thu richist clerb in thu worrld”. (They were happy at an uneven playing field rather than a more level one).

No….this is aimed at Villa and Forest and Man City (when they are eventually brought to book) et al.
Football was eating itself before these rules came in. It is surely good for the game that ALL clubs are reading from the same hymn book.
Yes, of course, some clubs will be better run than others….that is how competition works….and YES the rules are far from perfect as yet, with too many loopholes.
BUT for the betterment and longevity of the game in England, PSR is surely the right way to go.

…..And I hope to god that WE have had the calculator out to check that we are behaving sustainably!!

(Any thoughts on this?…my fine SMB cohorts)

Aston Villa want to be careful aligning themselves with them.

 

[Zweiguys]

But the rules aren’t level, there is not a hope in hell that anyone can break into the rich 5 clubs long term.

The rules are definitely level. The rich 5/6 clubs got a wicked head start and then decided to level the playing field making it difficult for lesser financed clubs to catch up and more importantly, stay caught up.

 

[ATTACK ATTACK ATTACK]

The rules are an improvement over the old FFP ones, but it is a concern that it just entrenches the established "top" clubs given their absurdly large incomes, see Liverpool being able to spend half a billion this year if they wanted to.

Not sure how you'd solve that though while still ensuring clubs aim for sustainability, I think you'd have to artificially cap spending which clubs would never go for.

It was put in place to stop the chasing clubs overspending and getting into shit loads of debt based on future seasons income. This is what nearly happened to the mags as they tried for Champions League but never got into it again yet had big wage bills.

Villa are pushing the limits with stupidly high wage bills and not getting into Champions League is why they have had to sell players. Look at their wage bill in 2023 as it was £194.2m to a turnover of £217.7m. Their high wage bill is why UEFA fined them recently when Villa got into Europe as that's nearly 90% and over the UEFA FFP limit (I think it was 80% last season and it's now 70%). If they do it again then they won't be allowed into Europe. This goes for any club in Europe as Chelsea got the same thing, a fine and threat of Europe ban.

Logon or register to see this image

 

[oldboy]

Yep very true


You should be able to spend what you want like sorry.

So because Man Utd were good 20 years ago they can do what they want, but Sunderland can't?

Nope, not for me thanks.

I’m sorry but you’re wrong. Man Utd being good 20 years ago isn’t enough. What they did was they capitalised on their on-field success 20 years ago by being the first club in the country to turn it into commercial success. They spotted gaps in the market across the world and built their brand, now they a reaping the benefits when they’ve been poor on the pitch.

Look at the other big spenders of the early 00’s in Leeds. They tried to go pound for pound with Man Utd but it was all built on sand. When the on pitch success faulted, they plummeted like a stone and it’s taken them 20 years to even get back into the same pitch as Man Utd.

The regulations are there to prevent this. The beauty of our system is it’s not a closed shop. Bad financial decisions can be unforgiving. It doesn’t matter how much an owner feels like they want to bankroll instant success right now, football is littered with countless examples of owners taking their ball home with them and pulling the financial plug when they don’t achieve their presumed successes.

 

[Cee Jay]

If they were allowed into this so called cartel they would drop objections to PSR in an instant.

Everyone knows this

 

[ATTACK ATTACK ATTACK]

The rules are definitely level. The rich 5/6 clubs got a wicked head start and then decided to level the playing field making it difficult for lesser financed clubs to catch up and more importantly, stay caught up.

The new SCR rules that will come in may allow some clubs to spend more as clubs can spend 85% on players etc to revenue but clubs in Europe can only spend 70%. Problem is that if a team gets into Europe then they will have to abide by UEFA rules but what if they're only in 1 season? Maybe there are allowances I don't know.

The SCR is better but even so 85% of a revenue of say £300m (£255m) is still smaller than 70% revenue of £600m (£420m) as it's an extra £15m per £100m revenue. In that link I hoyed up in the other post there is a mention of anchoring but it seems that it limits the spending of the big clubs. That isn't any good if the other clubs can't spend that money as they haven't got it.

What they need is to allow club owners to pay upfront for player fees and wages for the full contract. That will ensure if the owner gets bored and buggers off the club isn't left with the fall out and having to pay players on big wages with money they haven't got.

The problem with that is then it allows clubs with rich owners to just throw money at them, example being PIF and the mags. Spending would need to limited with the anchoring above so clubs don't have the advantage of having mega rich owners. I very much doubt clubs would agree to all that though so football is fucked no matter what now.

 

[Redandwhitedust]

Hammers still whinging as well.

You must be logged on to see external links

This is whats wrong with modern football.

Its about figures rather than ability. I hate the fact that £170m is seen as "buying a 3-0 win".

If (and I don't expect it!) We crept into a European spot on the back of a £170m spend as a newly promoted club we'd have "bought success" while thats just two or three players to an established club thats in the same position.

 

[SAFC11]

This is whats wrong with modern football.

Its about figures rather than ability. I hate the fact that £170m is seen as "buying a 3-0 win".

If (and I don't expect it!) We crept into a European spot on the back of a £170m spend as a newly promoted club we'd have "bought success" while thats just two or three players to an established club thats in the same position.

All we are doing is playing catchup. There squad will still likely have cost more than ours

 

[Redandwhitedust]

All we are doing is playing catchup. There squad will still likely have cost more than ours

Of course.
And had they beat us 3-0, the same poster would be saying "spent all that money and still light years behind us".

 

[Martinez73]

Villa And shots fired at Luke Edwards

You must be logged on to see media items

 

[forever changes]

Villa aligned with the Mags

 

[MustardAndOnions]

I’m sorry but you’re wrong. Man Utd being good 20 years ago isn’t enough. What they did was they capitalised on their on-field success 20 years ago by being the first club in the country to turn it into commercial success. They spotted gaps in the market across the world and built their brand, now they a reaping the benefits when they’ve been poor on the pitch.

Look at the other big spenders of the early 00’s in Leeds. They tried to go pound for pound with Man Utd but it was all built on sand. When the on pitch success faulted, they plummeted like a stone and it’s taken them 20 years to even get back into the same pitch as Man Utd.

The regulations are there to prevent this. The beauty of our system is it’s not a closed shop. Bad financial decisions can be unforgiving. It doesn’t matter how much an owner feels like they want to bankroll instant success right now, football is littered with countless examples of owners taking their ball home with them and pulling the financial plug when they don’t achieve their presumed successes.

Im not wrong you are wrong

Shouldn’t pile club in debt but if KlD wanted to spend his cash on Sunderland he should be able to

it’s purely there to protect the “big teams” it’s the perfect buffer for them which means they’ll never be far away from success

It’s utter nonsense

Your last quote is just wrong it is a closed shop. Someone like Villa did the hard work to get in the CL then had to sell players and now they are back in the pack.

Closed shop, protecting all the sides who want the European super league basically

 

[PoloVision]

Yep. Even now we’ve spent way less on our squad than I expect 90% of the prem league have in theirs over the years.

We still have the cheapest squad purchase value in the league at €191m according to tranfermarket. €50m behind the next lowest of Fulham

 

[Roose Bolton]

Im not wrong you are wrong

Shouldn’t pile club in debt but if KlD wanted to spend his cash on Sunderland he should be able to

it’s purely there to protect the “big teams” it’s the perfect buffer for them which means they’ll never be far away from success

It’s utter nonsense

Your last quote is just wrong it is a closed shop. Someone like Villa did the hard work to get in the CL then had to sell players and now they are back in the pack.

Closed shop, protecting all the sides who want the European super league basically

State-owned clubs being able to throw stupid money around inflates the market for everybody. If every megarich owner can spend whatever they want, what's to stop them just buying up all the best players from every club in the league to prevent any team having a chance to take points off them? Other clubs having to up their own wages simply to tread water is what puts the rest of us out of business.

 

[ATTACK ATTACK ATTACK]

I actually don't even think the Saudi's have an appetite to buy success there anyway. They just don't seem massively interested in them, more of a passive interest.

It's certainly changed from prior to the takeover to now. There's a few reasons for that but the first below being the main reason.

The European Super League was looming and with it, would have brought £100s millions to the clubs just for joining and then £100s more millions being part of it. The mags with mega rich owners would have got an invite for sure.

The ESL died a death when the clubs pulled out and then UEFA completely changed the Champions League into the league format. This allows the big European teams to have a better chance of progressing into knockout stages as they have more games to do it over.

The tighter restrictions on Associated Party Transactions also put a spanner in the works. The same for selling players between clubs as UEFA etc are now watching clubs.

UEFA changing the FFP to reduce the spending on players fees/wages etc to 70% of revenue so even harder now to piss money on players.

Going back to the ESL, that would have been big revenue guaranteed and a great return on investment for PIF but now they only path to big money is Champions League. The problem being there are only 4 places. Since 2004/05 only Leicester got into Champions League before the mags did it in 2023 and Villa in 2024. The mags got in last season thanks to the extra place last season but that place won't always be there.

There's now a small chance of getting Champions League and the riches it brings but also the global exposure. For PIF to throw big money at the mags is a big gamble as there's no guarantee of a return as the ESL is long gone now and Man Utd & Spurs won't always be struggling so will rejoin the 'big 6' positions at the top.

PIF are now just running the mags sustainably but they're already at the limit of spending. This Champions League has allowed them a bit more spending as the player fees will be split over coming seasons. However if they fail to get CL again then they will do the same again and barely bring in any new players. That is unless they sell players which they haven't really done.

Villa And shots fired at Luke Edwards

You must be logged on to see media items

As you see, all the clubs in Europe (Chelsea aside as they got fined and will be banned if they don't reduce it) are now at 70% wages to revenue to avoid fines from UEFA and their FFP rules.

Note the 68% for the mags as it shows they can't afford to pay extra wages to Isak and upset the wage bill so they have very little wiggle room. If they fail to get Champions League again then it could end up costly for them with regards buying new players.

Closed shop, protecting all the sides who want the European super league basically

See above as the ESL isn't happening any time soon as the threat of that died down when the Champions League changed. If the ESL is talked about again then UEFA will simply change the Champions League again. They may well split it into 2 leagues in time allowing more teams to qualify, who knows but it will evolve for sure.

As for PSR, it's not purely there to protect the big clubs at all. It was put there to protect clubs from owners overspending and then bailing leaving the club in the shit. It just so happens that because of the growth of football globally since 2013 means that the revenue for the big clubs has grown more than the remaining clubs due to only Leicester City ever breaking into the big money Champions League.