• 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

Football needs more financial regulations, not less. However, it should never been a good box ticking exercise to sell a homegrown player, and buy a replacement on a long term contract to "kick the can down the road" so to speak. It should never be incentivised so that Villa have had to sell Ramsety, like Newcastle have had to sell Anderson, Or Man City Cole Palmer, just to enable those clubs to spend on replacements that are no better, but allow more PSR headroom.
 

Martinez73 said:
Obsessed? You’re the one mentioning Newcastle the last few posts you’ve made on this thread.

PSR is to protect the smaller clubs as well. In fact it probably protects them most. Saves some owner coming in and spunking a load of cash, pissing off and leaving said club in trouble. If this scenario happened at the likes of Stoke they’d be knackered as they’d struggle for a buyer. If this scenario happened at Man Utd they’d be fine as there would be no shortage of buyers.
Click to expand...

I didn’t mention them once till you kept asking about them!

Sorry like it’s unfair snd it means barring a miracle the same few times can only win the league and that will never change
Roose Bolton said:
There won't necessarily be plenty of other players to buy, because under your system a country can just spend what they want, so why not just buy the 50 or 100 best players in the league & let the majority piss about in the reserves? You're advocating a weird ultra-libertarian free market on steroids approach where clubs that have a vastly disproportionate financial advantage (way more of a financial advantage than PSR creates, btw) can just blow away the competition year after year, apparently just to prove how unbothered you are about the mags.

I don't like the mags, they're our rivals. I live amongst them and have had to live with their obnoxious arrogance for the past 4 years, so no, I don't fancy putting that on steroids and experiencing it every year for decades. If you see that as a "gotcha" fine, but I'm going to call bullshit on your claim to just want to see Sunderland do well, because under the rules you're arguing for we're more likely to be wound up than compete for trophies.
Click to expand...

It’s not a gotcha but it’s why you have such strong opinions on it, which kind of defies the point
 
YorkMackem said:
It is worth saying that Man City, Chelsea and even Man Yoo, have hoovered up the world's young players for years now, probably with little chance that they'd make the first team. They're just a means to an end.
Click to expand...
That’s why I think that teams should only be allowed a fixed amount of total players (45?) aged 18 years old and above whether first team or under 21 teams. That number should include players out on loan and those in on loan.

You have 45 players and want to buy another? Well sell someone.
 
Don Birnam said:
That’s why I think that teams should only be allowed a fixed amount of total players (45?) aged 18 years old and above whether first team or under 21 teams. That number should include players out on loan and those in on loan.

You have 45 players and want to buy another? Well sell someone.
Click to expand...
Aye, that's a decent call. Maybe Brighton should be added too.
 
ATTACK ATTACK ATTACK said:
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.
Click to expand...
The PL wouldn’t even consider upfront payments as it’d need to be voted for by the PLs owners who are the 20 PL club owners and one day they may want to sell their club and the less restrictions the better will be their opinion.
 
Hulkenburger said:
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.
Click to expand...

A soft salary cap could be interesting.

You can go over it but then have to pay however much you go over by (or multiples of if numerous infractions) which then gets redistributed to the lower leagues/grassroots
 
Peel Street Massif said:
Football needs more financial regulations, not less. However, it should never been a good box ticking exercise to sell a homegrown player, and buy a replacement on a long term contract to "kick the can down the road" so to speak. It should never be incentivised so that Villa have had to sell Ramsety, like Newcastle have had to sell Anderson, Or Man City Cole Palmer, just to enable those clubs to spend on replacements that are no better, but allow more PSR headroom.
Click to expand...
Aye.
I’ve long thought home grown players sold at a profit shouldn’t have the full profit used for PSR purposes. Mebbes only 50%. Hopefully it’d encourage clubs to keep their own home gowns and stop them buying for buying sake. Just think of the agents fees they’d save. I mean once the money goes to an agent it’s out of football and free for the agent to do…….errrrrh……aaaah….just what he/she errrh wants with it. I mean who knows where it ends errrrh up.
Oooooooooooh NOW I get it. Silly me eh? Fancy thinking everyone in footballs in it for the love of the game and to do the right thing. Worra thick twat I am eh?
As you were.
Don Birnam said:
That’s why I think that teams should only be allowed a fixed amount of total players (45?) aged 18 years old and above whether first team or under 21 teams. That number should include players out on loan and those in on loan.

You have 45 players and want to buy another? Well sell someone.
Click to expand...
PFA straight out on strike.
 
Last edited:
Don Birnam said:
That’s why I think that teams should only be allowed a fixed amount of total players (45?) aged 18 years old and above whether first team or under 21 teams. That number should include players out on loan and those in on loan.

You have 45 players and want to buy another? Well sell someone.
Click to expand...
It should be 80. 25 first team, 25 u21, 25 u18, and max 5 u21's out on loan
 
riffraff said:
Aye.
I’ve long thought home grown players sold at a profit shouldn’t have the full profit used for PSR purposes. Mebbes only 50%. Hopefully it’d encourage clubs to keep their own home gowns and stop them buying for buying sake. Just think of the agents fees they’d save. I mean once the money goes to an agent it’s out of football and free for the agent to do…….errrrrh……aaaah….just what he/she errrh wants with it. I mean who knows where it ends errrrh up.
Oooooooooooh NOW I get it. Silly me eh? Fancy thinking everyone in footballs in it for the love of the game and to do the right thing. Worra thick twat I am eh?
As you were.

PFA straight out on strike.
Click to expand...
That wouldn't be a good idea as it would hamper the non rich clubs. For example if Rigg becomes a world beater he's gonna want to leave. If we got £120m from Man City for him but could only use £60m to boost the squad that would be shite for us
 
safclav said:
Pisses me off that. West Ham and everyone else can get fucked all they see is (£170 mil spent) most championship clubs down a fortune to get back into the prem.

We are a very well ran club atm
Not to mention we had the 14th highest wage bill in the championship, spent very little for a championship club, sold 2 assets for over £40 mil and then all the premier league money.

I dont even think we are close to any PSR cap atm.
Click to expand...
Fuck em, mate. I love it.

Seethe with jealousy. Envy us. We're f***ing class.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top