• The forums will be unavailable for a few hours on Saturday 6th June, when they do return they will initially be in a degraded state with some features missing, but normal posting/reading will be possible. The main website will not be affected by these updates.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.
    Some other features of the forum are also currently disabled.

PSR whinging

FatDrummer said:
Surprise, surprise….ex mag Dan Gosling (24 appearances in 4 seasons at the Carbuncle on the Hill) has been wheeled into the Sky Sports studio to call for PSR to be scrapped on The Transfer Show.

Sky are active supporters of the Sportswashers. They have ZERO moral backbone.
Click to expand...
They are thick as fuck. UEFA brought in FFP in 2010, the Premier League merely followed in 2013. If we scrapped PSR our clubs would be banned for European competition and all those massive revenue streams lost. Nobody is voting for that.

You must be logged on to see external links
 

parsonjohn1985 said:
Liverpool can because someone buys one of their kids for 25m every year. And they recycle there other players. They've sold players for 200m this year. There net spend is similar to ours and with amortisation and the amount of their kids they sell they will likely be in profit for the year (not counting previous years movements)
Click to expand...
This is what so many people don't get.
You can spend what the fuck you like, so long as you are bringing in revenue to cover most of it.

Like them up the road whinging about our spend. It's because we got promoted in the black, well run, and generated income from sales.

They have spent 100s of millions, and generated next to fuck all.
 
Keef now reckons that it is now more unlikely to leave the club following Newcastle statement last night…..REALLY???
Did you not read Isak’s statement? That seemed VERY final to me.
 
Georgewhitt said:
This is what so many people don't get.
You can spend what the fuck you like, so long as you are bringing in revenue to cover most of it.

Like them up the road whinging about our spend. It's because we got promoted in the black, well run, and generated income from sales.

They have spent 100s of millions, and generated next to fuck all.
Click to expand...
The irony is they bought 19 year old Minteh for €7M in 2023. Sold him a year later for £30M. Made the thick end of £26M on him.

The problem is it's a one off. Apart from him they've mainly bought finished products in their mid 20's. Their value will either stay the same or go down.

They paid a lot for a young Isak. It's time to cash in but their ego won't allow it.
 
The Problem with Newcastle has always been their problem especially since the reinvention of football in 92. They think that they are and have always been with the exception of Man United on par with the likes of Liverpool and Arsenal. This sentiment has only grown since the Saudi Arabian state took over them.
They’re a delusional bunch of self hyping set of supporters who think their club is bigger than it actually is. God forbid the day that rules are changed because the likes of them, Villa and Forrest have come into a bit of money the knars
 
Georgewhitt said:
This is what so many people don't get.
You can spend what the fuck you like, so long as you are bringing in revenue to cover most of it.

Like them up the road whinging about our spend. It's because we got promoted in the black, well run, and generated income from sales.

They have spent 100s of millions, and generated next to fuck all.
Click to expand...

Ironically they could spend loads if they just sold isak
 
Qwerty said:
If we spend more than £105m than what we bring in.
Click to expand...
Have we though?

I thought the tv sponsorship of the premier league has paid us an extra £100m per season and then on top of that we gave at least two parachute payment years of £60m?
 
I do think it needs to be tweaked.

I would have a ruling where maximum PSR losses are calculated and if you exceed that you need to have reserves of at least equal to the future committed liabilities of the business - i.e. including the deferred transfer fees and also salaries for the raining period of the players contracts.

I think that would support sustainability, but might mean Chelsea need to have £1bn in the bank account.
 
3.142 said:
I do think it needs to be tweaked.

I would have a ruling where maximum PSR losses are calculated and if you exceed that you need to have reserves of at least equal to the future committed liabilities of the business - i.e. including the deferred transfer fees and also salaries for the raining period of the players contracts.

I think that would support sustainability, but might mean Chelsea need to have £1bn in the bank account.
Click to expand...
I would go further and say you must have anything you overspend on deposit with the Premier League to pay those liabilities.
I don't know where I stand on it really. I hate the idea of nation states dominating the game with their superior wealth but also feel for fans of smaller clubs that always had that dream that a new wealthy owner could transform their lot.
 
Man city will never be held to account the prem can't afford it , psr was brought in to protect the top 6 against Newcastle and its effected the rest of the pyramid, the prem clubs apart from top 6 are happy to be lap dogs as long as they stay in prem
 
Qwerty said:
If we lose £105m over 3 years yes.
Obviously I'd expect better sponsorship deals if we stay in the PL.
Click to expand...
Hi, Forest fan been through what you are going through.
Don’t forget you only have something like 87mill not the full 105mill due to not being in the promised land for a few years.
When we were first spending money, we brought up a squad of about 5 people and only 2 of them were able to perform like they belonged in the league. That’s also the main reason we had to buy so many players! Plus we had no confidence of being able to stay up so we’re buying 2 squads, 1 to compete and 1 to bounce back the next season!

Glad you’re back up and I hope you stay over Brentford!
 
gastap said:
Man city will never be held to account the prem can't afford it , psr was brought in to protect the top 6 against Newcastle and its effected the rest of the pyramid, the prem clubs apart from top 6 are happy to be lap dogs as long as they stay in prem
Click to expand...
😂 But but cartel 🤣

You've been listening to mag whoppers for far too long.

PSR was voted in by 13 Premier clubs, including NUFC in 2013. The mags were taken over in 2021.

How exactly did the top clubs bring in PSR to protect themselves from Newcastle 8 years before they were taken over?
 
gastap said:
Man city will never be held to account the prem can't afford it , psr was brought in to protect the top 6 against Newcastle and its effected the rest of the pyramid, the prem clubs apart from top 6 are happy to be lap dogs as long as they stay in prem
Click to expand...
Didn't Newcastle vote in favour of PSR?
I'm not sure how Newcastle getting relegated wasn't a better protection for the top 6 to the threat posed by Newcastle than PSR was. The mags got relegated the year PSR started, just for clarity.
Did the big 6 really view Mike Ashley's freshly relegated club as that big a threat that they engineered the whole PSR system to protect themselves from him?
 
Georgewhitt said:
This is what so many people don't get.
You can spend what the fuck you like, so long as you are bringing in revenue to cover most of it.

Like them up the road whinging about our spend. It's because we got promoted in the black, well run, and generated income from sales.

They have spent 100s of millions, and generated next to fuck all.
Click to expand...
And they’ve STILL currently spent as much as us this summer (well their famous “net spend”) anyway
PSR the latest thing to break the mags

Knackers
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top