PSR is not fit for purpose if a team like Newcastle can’t spend. There are many other teams that are also willing to spend more but can’t. There should be rules that allow the spending but only so much debt being with the club and that owners have to be liable for. Also, why were Man U let off with the amount of losses they had, which were far in excess of £105m?
@@Red-dog77 think the easy answer is that united make money from established success and global fanbase. What you're advocating for is the means to be able to buy success rather than earn it.
@@TheMercWithMouthHow did Man united get success and in turn because of this success grow a large fan base, MONEY 🤑 🤑 🤑 💰 💰 💰 You had the most money in the 90's and were able to pay the highest wages, largest transfer fees and fill your youth academy, you are delusional if you think otherwise.
The rules were made to benefit the established top teams, even train wrecks like Man U, after the super league threat. Virtually impossible to get +14 clubs to vote so other clubs to go toe to toe with the fat cats.
@@TheMercWithMouthYou think you’re smart but you clearly aren’t. If you google ‘capitalism’ you’ll hopefully realise that PSR is an agenda - not a playing-field-leveller.
@@thomasjenkins6515 and yet spend 200 million plus every summer window. Stop listening to goldbridge propaganda You make more revenue than any club in world football you tool
@@blinkin78Chelsea heavily investigated and have had to sell youth products. City currently under investigation for financial fraud on a huge scale. What else do you want mate? Hahaha
The Super League clubs wanted to have an extra 250mil per year advantage over the likes of Newcastle & Villa(who's total revenues are around 300mil) besides the massive 500-750mil superior revenue they already had which would mean the "Big 6" could've just cherry picked they're best players like Gordon, Isak, Bruno, Tonali, Rogers, McGinn, Watkins to damage them every transfer window much like how Bayern did to Dortmund whenever they'd start to challenge them in the Bundesliga. I think the Premier League needs to get taken to court to get the current PSR limitations changed.
@@neiljeremy8684exactly. What these bitter fans simply can't understand is that the PSR restrictions ARE impacting the big name clubs too. United in particular are pretty much stuck and unable to spend their way out of it. PSR clearly isn't something thats protecting them
@@WOOOPdoctorFROGhereit gives a club like United a hell of a lot more leeway to spend given how big United are, United have spent it appallingly to get into this position.
PSR has benefited the teams prior to psr more than anyone ..Gave certain teams head starts The damage has already been done because the gap has already been created and will never be closed
Newcastle it’s not only about what they can spend. It’s fact that so called big six can offer more salary. Newcastle have a spine of players and the vultures circling trying to pick the bones
I agree, but it also forces us to be smarter and structure the club better. The rules need to be relaxed and the loss margins need to be much higher. I want to see the Newcastle we have now. Well ran, clever buys, but I also want to see marquee signings. I think it is a balancing act, but as long as it benefits to greedy 6, it will never change.
@@kevinjeenesand some how we still in the mix aswell ,its a joke ffp,psr let clubs spend wot they want who cares if ncastle ,villa ,everton,even forest if they win the league by spending its compettion we want the more teams the better ,if ncaste and villa have to sell isak and rodgers how is that fair compettion and selling youngsters for profit who ever came up with these rules needs a smack ,every club youngsters coming and getting in 1st team squad ,wot u might get now if ur not carefull is clubs stock pileing youngsters for profit
Even though its a fix and they're trying to control, Newcastle dont even need the purse strings unlocked because they have EDDIE HOWE and he's built an absolutely beast of a team and using his capabilities of improving players he's largely side stepped the hurdles put infront of him. It wont be long before the squad is fully strengthened and wont even require the big bucks everyone else tries to use to try and "sort" their problems. PSR won't matter. They're 6 good signings away from challenging anyone. All easily within the next 2/3 windows as the majority of the squad is young. It couldn't have went any better, the restrictions have actually forced them to be very careful and choose the very best and change takes time. This patience is absolutely showing its worth. And it proves howe good eddie is, you can't use the excuse of "money", its all skill and hard work.
PSR will just end up causing a European Super League in the end. It's a disgrace that Clubs with money aren't allowed to progress just because a few established Legacy Clubs will get bloody noses.
The clubs doesn't have money it's the state of Saudi who have money! The rules are there to stop economic doping and secure British talents from rottening on the bench in of these sellout clubs with unlimited money
@@Cedisdead So in other words it's to stop investment? Because that's all that will happen in the EPL which will as a knock-on effect, hurt the overall quality of the Premier League. You could argue it already has.
Premier League wants to be the biggest league in the world yet makes itself a laughing stock of the football World while preventing the worlds best from coming here
PSR handcuffs every aspirational football club, because it's as much as a financial competition as it is a sporting competition (maybe moreso), and the few clubs who were successful previously and have been able to make more money via players sales and competing in european comps, are able to far outstrip the capacities that other clubs have, which is not only unfair but actually anti-competitive with regard the sporting side of the game. PSR has the capacity of killing the game. I also feel that club debt should be brought into the equation if teams are being hampered by their ability to sign players because of the basis of their lack of revenue. I'm all for FFP, but PSR is a step too far as some will simply not be able to compete since there are larger implications for buying higher priced players, and also for relegation threatened club taking hits trying to avoid respective drops into lower divisions. There is a whole web of corruption in sport yet to unfold. Least of all with the outcome of the case against Man City. Who it appears have actually breached FFP by a sizeable margin. And now it's been decreed that they can't be relegated from the EPL as a result of these charges. I actually feel that PSR has actively killed professional football, because of teams not being able to compete due to new owners not being able to invest in their clubs and increase their respective values. I mean clubs are already hampered by not being able to become successful due to not being able to perform at the levels required to win trophies and compete in europe. Which also hints towards a huge european (or other respective continental) football league which includes all the teams down in the depths of the footballing pyramids of all countries within the respective footballing confederations worldwide. Unless non-league teams can now charge the same prices as those in the champions league in order to rebalance the equation. It doesn't matter how we look at this situation. A comprehensive clusterf*ck has been created. And maybe the only way to redress the balance in all football is to restart professional football again from square one.
Any other business you lose 105 million you'd be fucked out the door ffs, most clubs are operating at a loss at is without them being allowed dig a bigger hole for themselves
In the real world we have inflation,yet the £105 million over 3 years hasn't increased, the rules suck & have nothing to do with sustainable running of clubs,but only to protect the Rich 6 monopoly. 💯💩👎
@@chucky7826I understand your point but it’s simply not true. Many many startups take on huge debts for sometimes 10 years before they turn a profit. Look at the likes of Amazon, Snapchat, Uber
@chucky7826 That depends Some businesses have products that lose 100-150m to make that back inevitably down the line. So much investment is hidden by other departments collective profit. Clubs like Newcastle have that other department profit (PIF), the club could easily spend 100m a season for 5 seasons, then start making 200-300m extra a season through sales and revenue
@CxdxvnmbhhvI don't think it shud b about how much you make, it's their money, spend as much as they like, billionaires are billionaires, all a deflection to stop anyone challenging the top 4/5, cartel
@@BurnCKC under the rules at the time, any advertising for products or services in a ground needed to be paid for, what he did was he put up all his gaudy signage and used St. James' park as free advertising for his business and didn't pay a penny to the club for that privilege instead he paid a 'maintenance fee' to keep them up and the prem basically did the whole 'we don't see anything wrong here', so as a *DIRECT* result of that going on for over a decade, it cost NUFC roughly 20-30 MILLION per season in advertising revenues, to use a modern day example, imagine the king of the rats down at MU using all the advertising hoardings around old trafford and plastering ineos brading everywhere, not paying for that advertising space, and as a result MU lost an average of £20m per season, do you think the prem would allow such a thing knowing that one of their ivory tower mafia was being taken advantage of?
@@BurnCKC It stripped Newcastle of its commercial revenue as Mike Ashley wasn't paying anything for the advertising space. So it proves the prem are fine with related party sponsors being under value (in Newcastles case zero) but not ok if it's over value. Which is stonewall proof that the rules are only there to prevent clubs from competing at the top and not there to protect them from going into financial ruin.
Man City fans been calling out how awful the system is for a decade, whether that be PSR or FFP. Newcastle for about 5 years. No one cared when the obvious flaws were pointed out then and how the system was built to benefit a select few. Now that basically every club is being held back from investing now its not fit for purpose. Shows that all the people who never called it out for years either didn't have a clue or just pushing an agenda.
Not every club. Just a few who spend ridiculously. Including Forest, who damn near bought a whole new squad and Everton who bought poor players and paid them ridiculous wages.
@@YanYnwa 1 - I didn't say every club. I said basically every club. 2 - Investing well and investing badly makes no difference. If a business makes a decision to spend money to attempt to achieve their goals they should be allowed to do that.
The nonsense of Chelsea selling their assets to themselves and the fact that other club owners chose to allow it shows exactly why the UK ought to install an independent regulator. They can say it's not technically cheating, but it obviously is, and smaller clubs who have been sanctioned ought to use it as grounds to sue on the basis of unfair treatment.
UEFA don't allow what Chelsea have done for their FFP rules, so it'll be interesting to see what happens. Anyway, Chelsea are just can-kicking, eventually they'll run out of things to sell to themselves.
💯 agree. rather than focusing on how much you can spend. Make the league competitive from day one. Give each club the same budget. As it strands, it’s just about outspending each other. That’s the only reason players started going for 100mil when actually we should be looking to bring the spending down for everyone and make everything sustainable. Clubs don’t have wealth, owners have wealth. We should be making it about the league and protecting competition for everyone, not just the top teams who have unlimited money.
Newcastle United have been a major part of English football over the years …fair enough to say they’ve been cannon fodder and at times little more than a nursery club .. so its a bit sad that there has been very little support from teams that one day may find them selfs in a similar situation! …also it undoubtedly diminishes the prestige of teams who benefit from these rules ..would it really have been such a bad thing if Newcastle were allowed to pay over the odds for guehi ? Palace would have possibly spent on other players ! …
@@JayEFC1969 probably fair to say they were not hindered by PSR rules for that one player at that one time …but your clutching at straws if your trying to make a case for the rules being fair..Good luck in your new stadium… methinks you may revisit your thoughts on PSR in the not to distant future .
@@JayEFC1969 your lot massively helped with that more than any financial rules ever could, you hounded him out of the club and actively terrorised the lad, absolutely pathetic.
All designed to keep the "big six" the big six, have you walked into the premier league offices? There are 6 banners with club crests on the wall, which clubs do you think they are?
Hmmm. Let's see which clubs have benefitted from the most owner funding over the last 5 years: Everton £598m Fulham £456m Villa £453m Chelsea £379m Arsenal £272m Leicester £282m Newcastle £173m We'll jump down to the bottom two clubs now... Liverpool MINUS £26m Man United MINUS £112m Fact is, the FFP regs allow wealthy owners to pump a LOT of money into clubs, and for things like infrastructure, womens team, youth teams etc the amount is unlimited. If the big six as you put it really wanted to keep smaller clubs from receiving investment they would have gone with a system where clubs could only spend a percentage of revenues. They could also have tried to force a less equitable sharing of TV money, afterall it's the biggest clubs that really drive TV money, yet TV money is shared more equally than in any other league.
this is such an uneducated argument. psr is killing man utd right now... they would be the single biggest beneficiary of psr scrappage. ineos are worth 60bn+... if it wasn't for psr, they could literally lift the entire debt off utd in one swoop. utd, along with Newcastle, would be able to go heavy this "red cartel" only exists in the minds of feeble ppl
Being in London clearly provides great benefits when selling assets, but equally, when it comes to a stadium upgrade or buying other assets, it’s a tremendous disadvantage. Goes both ways, Kevin.
Selling car parks, hotels to groups within the ownership are APT & as such need to be assessed by an independent panel BEFORE any sale. PIF worth is over £700Bn not £400Bn btw 😂
I did agree with Jordan that owners should be allowed some more freedom to spend within a couple of years after a takeover, then normal rules apply after that.
These rules will only ultimately damage the Premier League, and therefore down the road every club in it. So those voting for it are committing an act of self harm
PSR should not be revenue based, the fact it is protects the established clubs and by definition is anti-competitive. It is protectionism. How can any rules regarding financial stability not account for debt? You are encouraging companies to operate at a loss by having this PSR allowance whilst not counting any debt. That is not how any business should be run. Alternatively, every owner should put operating costs for 5-10 years in escrow thereby securing financial stability then every club should receive the same amount of media money and we should establish an annual spend, the same for every club based on that. Whilst PSR is revenue based, there will always be that need to drive prices up, which ultimately affects the fans.
Debt is counted. Interest payments are counted as an expense for PSR. MUFC for example has interest payments of about £36m per year as an expense against PSR. Whereas clubs like Brighton and Villa who have received interest free loans from their owners have zero expense against PSR for their debt....though with the changes to the APT regs from now on owner/shareholder loans can no longer be zero rated, they have to be at market rate (you can thank City for screwing over clubs with that one). TV money is shared more equitably than in any other major league. That's why the PL has been such a success, even the smaller clubs in the league can outspend virtually every club on the continent. The idea that every club should have the same budget is ridiculous. The big clubs would have about £400m cash every year that they weren't allowed to spend. They wouldn't be able to compete for top players, revenues for the league would collapse, the PL would nosedive into oblivion.
There is no difference between Chelsea's group structure and Arsenal's group structure. Both clubs have roughly 10-15 group companies, and both shift assets between the group companies - Arsenal used inter-company loans and cash.
If the Premier League is going to keep docking points each season, then they need to start doing this at the very beginning of the season so players and managers know what they are dealing with from the very off. Because it’s deeply unfair to the current players and managers who have absolutely nothing to do with club errors from years ago. Psychologically, it is very damaging to feel like you are constantly running up a hill/spinning in circles with points being randomly docked at will halfway through the season and into the latter portions of the season. Particularly for sides that are struggling to stay up. And optically, it is absolutely ridiculous that City’s case has extended on for years with zero points deductions while much smaller clubs get points deducted at will. Regardless of the actual legal proceedings, it makes a mockery of the table to see less thans quickly punished while City don’t lose a single point.
The 21-24 PSR period ended 30th June. It takes time to compile and audit accounts. Then they have to send them to the PL by end of calendar year. Then the PL has to review the accounts. The punishment has to be during the season, you can't have the PL saying "yes this club has failed PSR, but we'll hold off punishing them until the following season". Failing PSR automatically confers a sporting advantage, and the club has had that advantage this season, so the punishment has to be this season.
silly rules to protect the corrupt cartel clubs at the top of the food chain - the sooner impartial third party independent oversight of the league is implemented, the sooner we might see a more level playing field and actual fair competition
Who decided the best way protect fans from there clubs going bust was “if a club takes on too much debt they should lose points so they get relegated and drastically reduce their income on an inflated wage bill caused by the over spend? “Maybe the same people that want to join an exclusive European super league?
I also thought that FFP was to help stop clubs buying players to buy success. Everton were told that the stadium costs would not be counted towards FFP by the PL - who then changed their minds! Everton one of the few clubs with a net profit on player transfers and still hammered (more than any other club) by the PL. Forest basically bought a whole new squad (which is now paying off in terms of on-field success to the detriment of other clubs) and got a lower points deduction! Its all a complete mess.
A set of rules which I dont believe anyone actually knows the true effect of. Its cant be a coincedence that it only came into effect after 2021 when PIF entered the league, been around for 10 years prior but 30th June and 31st December deadlines only a thing last two years. As soon as it starts to hurt Man Utd and Liverpool it will get scrapped…rapidly approaching that point soon now Man Utd need a huge re-build and Liverpool potentially losing 3 best players for free
It needs revamping in some way to even the competition out. We cant have teams being owned by nation states given free reign who could basically buy anyone they like and pay whatever they like in wages. At the same time, ambitious clubs like Newcastle need to be able to fairly compete without getting points deductions.
It just says to investors that it is not worth bothering owning a club. Who knows which club was next in line to be bought out by an ambitious backer, but now they have decided not to go down that route.
They have to raise it, to comply with inflation. 220m should be today’s cap. It really isn’t rocket science. If they don’t, the Premier league will take a huge step backwards in the coming years, losing players to foreign leagues.
For the sake of keeping it competitive, I think the rules are important.... but my take on it is, when a rich owner takes on a club, they should sign some form of contract that stipulates any debt should be able to be covered by that owner and if the club is sold, that debt cannot remain in any fashion. Basically, assurance that the club itself should not owe money and the debt to be attached/set against the owner of the club, to summarise. I guess to play devil's advocate against myself, you then invite owners to have firesales of assets if they can't cover it personally which is obviously disastrous for the clubs future.
I think it might need tweaking, but we certainly shouldn't allow clubs to spend whatever they want. This will super inflate wages EVEN further ( remember most clubs are lossing money) ...Clubs should be self-sufficient, because once the rich owner gets bored the clubs are in trouble. (Sheffield wednesday, reading even Chelsea (yes more he couldnt support them ) before the take over . Considering its PSR (Profit and sustainability!) its crazy the rule already allows losses of £105m... Lastly, these rich owners CAN spend what they like on infrastructure and youth setups. ( Doesnt count to PSR!). So why not develop the grounds ( increase revenue) and training facilities. Its not all about just buying players
Chelsea selling the womens team for over 100M is a joke. All the teams lose money and arent in any way close to having that kind of value. The rules are stupid and only got bought in to prevent new owners with money breaking up the cartel at the top.
The premier league will implode. Serving the top six is not ‘fair play’. Buying best players based upon best turnover and profit is not a fair system. No one can possibly break into the top six.
Spend spend spend. All people want to do is spend. Why can’t we just spend less? Why is the only way to have the best league, to be able to spend the most? Why can’t we just have a competitive league and be happy with it? It’s always about the next 100mil player or the 500k wages. Other leagues are doing just fine without being the best league in the world. People complaining that clubs aren’t spending in Jan. Why is it all about who you can buy. Just play football!!! It’s mad that a couple of clubs can just buy the league already. We should be focusing on making the full league competitive, ratter than focusing on limiting for some and raising for others. Every club in the league should have the same limits rather than helping the top teams pull away. They all get enough money from TV to put in a transfer pot each year.
Probably controversial (I've had many an argument with my mates about this), but let clubs spend what they want... if they go bust then tough! I could do that with my business if I wanted.. go into debt employing a few extra salesmen and if it went bust then that's on me. Why be so precious with football clubs? Plenty of clubs have gone out of business over the years. The new, big money spent by the clubs would all trickle down eventually to the lower leagues.
Here’s how to sum it up for how dumb the prem are nearly all leagues with rules like this adjust for inflation of the league and money made by the league since the introduction prices and wages have gone up but the psr regs have not increased so it’s broken and clubs are handcuffed they need to increase PSR to adjust for the inflation in football or no clubs down the bottom will progress and we will continue to see yoyo championship/prem teams and more teams who fall down several leagues after relegation from the prem becuase they had to spend to try and best relegation beyond there means it’s insane that selling young English acedemy players is only alternative
Inflation in football was cause by nation states owning clubs, and premier league teams paying insane money to European clubs. You can’t cause hyper inflation and then complain the inflation you caused is hampering you 🤣🤣🤣🤣
The alternative we scrap the rules and let Saudi Arabia and Abu Dhabi run wild with their unlimited wealth. Would rather see the system altered to make it better than all regulation be removed
The league rules are literally set by the constitute clubs. 14 clubs can make a majority change to any of the rules. But they are all too shortsighted to get a leg over their immediate rivals. While the champs league clubs stretch further away. Stephan Borsen is clueless and smells faintly of cabbage
lol imagine if this wasn’t a thing The prem would be 1: Newcastle 2: Man City 3: Aston Villa or Chelsea 4: Arsenal or forest or Liverpool Looks better without Man Utd doesn’t it . 😂
How are they handcuffed? there as never been so much money available to these clubs! thing is they are all in massive debt, the more money they give you on your credit card the more you will spend!
UERA rules are making losses even tighter. Plus, it is likely Chelsea will lose all their money from the Conference as UEFA do not accept hotel sales nor womens team sales.
So hes ok with a country like Saudi Arabia using a football club to sportswash the fact that theyre a medieval state. We need some morality back in football
How can being allowed to lose 35m a year be sustainable for any club? The only clubs FFP/PSR protect are the top clubs, they're protected from clubs with owners who want success not dividends.
@@craiglee3653 4 prem teams made a profit in the previous financial year. It’s why ffp was brought it, to stop clubs posting insane loses (Leeds, Portsmouth, Bolton etc) and nearly going under like bury did. You obviously have no idea
You're only saying that because you want lottery clubs to be able to buy trophies. If you had any intelligence, you'd realise that this will ultimately make it even harder for clubs at lower levels who didn't win a lottery. Make money by being sensible and being better on the pitch by investing in your academies.
@TheMercWithMouth If you had any intelligence, you'd know money would filter down to the smaller clubs! For the first time in the history of football, there have been financial regulations all to protect the greedy clubs, and more clubs are struggling than ever before! So your post is nothing more than waffle. Which of the entitled clubs do you support?
Bunch of cry baby who want to spend money they don't have and can't afford to pay it back. If you could afford paying it your rich owners would lend you it. Try get some fan base, little success by being SMART with youre money, make couple huge sakes re invest , more success then the big sponsorship deals come, the ucl and then you can take your billion £ loan you can afford to repay.
Manchester United has reported net losses for each of the past four fiscal years: Fiscal Year 2024: Net loss of £113.2 million. Fiscal Year 2023: Net loss of £28.7 million. Fiscal Year 2022: Net loss of £115.5 million. Fiscal Year 2021: Net loss of £92.2 million.
Does make me laugh how as soon as a club is fucked it's PSR's fault. Don't see LFC and Spurs complaining about PSR because they run their clubs as your suppose to. I do think the PSR limit should be increased but it's not PSR's problem that clubs want to piss away money.
LFC and Spurs have a higher revenue stream than other clubs, so they can spend more and be out of PSR, and are favoured by the PL. So using them as an example isn't worth it. PSR is skewed towards the 'top 6'. Others have to plan for relegation and sell their best players, or best youth talent to stay afloat of the rules. It's broken, it doesn't work and stops ambition from other clubs. We as fans didn't want a super league, but the premier league are doing a fine job protecting the bigger clubs and it's effectively is one now.
Newcastle should spend 500 million, take the 10 point deduction, write an nice apologetic letter and get it reduced to 5
No we shouldn't. I don't want any black stain on my club. Rather the club stay within the rules and hope for one day rules get changed.
@@yanited1892 Here here 👏👏
@@yanited1892that ain't going to happen
@@yanited1892 The rules are corrupt. Fight them.
Love it probably work as well😂
PSR is not fit for purpose if a team like Newcastle can’t spend. There are many other teams that are also willing to spend more but can’t. There should be rules that allow the spending but only so much debt being with the club and that owners have to be liable for.
Also, why were Man U let off with the amount of losses they had, which were far in excess of £105m?
@@Red-dog77 think the easy answer is that united make money from established success and global fanbase.
What you're advocating for is the means to be able to buy success rather than earn it.
@@TheMercWithMouthHow did Man united get success and in turn because of this success grow a large fan base, MONEY 🤑 🤑 🤑 💰 💰 💰 You had the most money in the 90's and were able to pay the highest wages, largest transfer fees and fill your youth academy, you are delusional if you think otherwise.
Whilst I see the point and to some degree agree with it.. The PSR rules mean that only those with prior success can spend..
The rules were made to benefit the established top teams, even train wrecks like Man U, after the super league threat. Virtually impossible to get +14 clubs to vote so other clubs to go toe to toe with the fat cats.
@@TheMercWithMouthYou think you’re smart but you clearly aren’t. If you google ‘capitalism’ you’ll hopefully realise that PSR is an agenda - not a playing-field-leveller.
These rules only help the Red Cartel
If your including United in that you’ve not seen how much money they are losing
Like Man City and Chelsea ? Engage your brain please
@@thomasjenkins6515 and yet spend 200 million plus every summer window. Stop listening to goldbridge propaganda
You make more revenue than any club in world football you tool
' Red cartel ' a term used by lottery clubs for validation 😂
@@blinkin78Chelsea heavily investigated and have had to sell youth products.
City currently under investigation for financial fraud on a huge scale.
What else do you want mate? Hahaha
The Super League clubs wanted to have an extra 250mil per year advantage over the likes of Newcastle & Villa(who's total revenues are around 300mil) besides the massive 500-750mil superior revenue they already had which would mean the "Big 6" could've just cherry picked they're best players like Gordon, Isak, Bruno, Tonali, Rogers, McGinn, Watkins to damage them every transfer window much like how Bayern did to Dortmund whenever they'd start to challenge them in the Bundesliga. I think the Premier League needs to get taken to court to get the current PSR limitations changed.
But according to your argument if you change the limitation wont the same "big 6" just spend more to get the same players they could take for cheaper?
@@neiljeremy8684 Not when you look at the owners of Newcastle, Villa and Everton. Their spending power would destroy the dodgy American cartel.
@@neiljeremy8684exactly. What these bitter fans simply can't understand is that the PSR restrictions ARE impacting the big name clubs too. United in particular are pretty much stuck and unable to spend their way out of it. PSR clearly isn't something thats protecting them
@@WOOOPdoctorFROGhereit gives a club like United a hell of a lot more leeway to spend given how big United are, United have spent it appallingly to get into this position.
Let's hope we get a super league so we don't need to deal with these sellout economic doping clubs from Saudi
PSR has benefited the teams prior to psr more than anyone ..Gave certain teams head starts The damage has already been done because the gap has already been created and will never be closed
Psr was designed to keep the gap not close it.
The gap was ALWAYS there
Par is there to stop economic doping and make cheating clubs play their own talents instead if only buying from real European football leagues
Newcastle it’s not only about what they can spend. It’s fact that so called big six can offer more salary. Newcastle have a spine of players and the vultures circling trying to pick the bones
How we lost to sign the Uzbek defender!
I agree, but it also forces us to be smarter and structure the club better. The rules need to be relaxed and the loss margins need to be much higher. I want to see the Newcastle we have now. Well ran, clever buys, but I also want to see marquee signings. I think it is a balancing act, but as long as it benefits to greedy 6, it will never change.
Don't understand why so many people defend Saudi and their use of economic doping
Because you are a child minded wally with no grasp if reality. @@Cedisdead
Ncastle and villa hamperd by ffp selling ur best players isnt fair compettion
Everton are now 'DEBT FREE', we have owners richer than Liverpool's FSG, and we are still at risk
@@george150799 joke innit
@@george150799 villa owners are richer than Everton,,still can't spend wot we want... .
@@kevinjeenesand some how we still in the mix aswell ,its a joke ffp,psr let clubs spend wot they want who cares if ncastle ,villa ,everton,even forest if they win the league by spending its compettion we want the more teams the better ,if ncaste and villa have to sell isak and rodgers how is that fair compettion and selling youngsters for profit who ever came up with these rules needs a smack ,every club youngsters coming and getting in 1st team squad ,wot u might get now if ur not carefull is clubs stock pileing youngsters for profit
Yh but man City fans wanna moan about rules they completely ignored 😂
Even though its a fix and they're trying to control, Newcastle dont even need the purse strings unlocked because they have EDDIE HOWE and he's built an absolutely beast of a team and using his capabilities of improving players he's largely side stepped the hurdles put infront of him. It wont be long before the squad is fully strengthened and wont even require the big bucks everyone else tries to use to try and "sort" their problems. PSR won't matter. They're 6 good signings away from challenging anyone. All easily within the next 2/3 windows as the majority of the squad is young. It couldn't have went any better, the restrictions have actually forced them to be very careful and choose the very best and change takes time.
This patience is absolutely showing its worth. And it proves howe good eddie is, you can't use the excuse of "money", its all skill and hard work.
PSR will just end up causing a European Super League in the end. It's a disgrace that Clubs with money aren't allowed to progress just because a few established Legacy Clubs will get bloody noses.
The clubs doesn't have money it's the state of Saudi who have money! The rules are there to stop economic doping and secure British talents from rottening on the bench in of these sellout clubs with unlimited money
@@Cedisdead So in other words it's to stop investment? Because that's all that will happen in the EPL which will as a knock-on effect, hurt the overall quality of the Premier League. You could argue it already has.
Premier League wants to be the biggest league in the world yet makes itself a laughing stock of the football World while preventing the worlds best from coming here
How so?
Pl - psr rules, la liga 6 salary cap, forced release clauses on every player and most of all no Saudi clubs and no economic doping
PSR handcuffs every aspirational football club, because it's as much as a financial competition as it is a sporting competition (maybe moreso), and the few clubs who were successful previously and have been able to make more money via players sales and competing in european comps, are able to far outstrip the capacities that other clubs have, which is not only unfair but actually anti-competitive with regard the sporting side of the game.
PSR has the capacity of killing the game.
I also feel that club debt should be brought into the equation if teams are being hampered by their ability to sign players because of the basis of their lack of revenue.
I'm all for FFP, but PSR is a step too far as some will simply not be able to compete since there are larger implications for buying higher priced players, and also for relegation threatened club taking hits trying to avoid respective drops into lower divisions.
There is a whole web of corruption in sport yet to unfold. Least of all with the outcome of the case against Man City. Who it appears have actually breached FFP by a sizeable margin. And now it's been decreed that they can't be relegated from the EPL as a result of these charges.
I actually feel that PSR has actively killed professional football, because of teams not being able to compete due to new owners not being able to invest in their clubs and increase their respective values.
I mean clubs are already hampered by not being able to become successful due to not being able to perform at the levels required to win trophies and compete in europe. Which also hints towards a huge european (or other respective continental) football league which includes all the teams down in the depths of the footballing pyramids of all countries within the respective footballing confederations worldwide. Unless non-league teams can now charge the same prices as those in the champions league in order to rebalance the equation.
It doesn't matter how we look at this situation. A comprehensive clusterf*ck has been created.
And maybe the only way to redress the balance in all football is to restart professional football again from square one.
Stripping a clubs assets isn't sustainable, the Premier leagues FFP/PSR regulations are a sick joke. 💯💩👎
The £105mil limit over three years needs to be increased.
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Any other business you lose 105 million you'd be fucked out the door ffs, most clubs are operating at a loss at is without them being allowed dig a bigger hole for themselves
In the real world we have inflation,yet the £105 million over 3 years hasn't increased, the rules suck & have nothing to do with sustainable running of clubs,but only to protect the Rich 6 monopoly. 💯💩👎
@@chucky7826I understand your point but it’s simply not true. Many many startups take on huge debts for sometimes 10 years before they turn a profit. Look at the likes of Amazon, Snapchat, Uber
@chucky7826 That depends
Some businesses have products that lose 100-150m to make that back inevitably down the line.
So much investment is hidden by other departments collective profit.
Clubs like Newcastle have that other department profit (PIF), the club could easily spend 100m a season for 5 seasons, then start making 200-300m extra a season through sales and revenue
It’s a disgrace! Newcastle are in profit and are making a fortune right now yet CANT spend any of it. Mental!!!!
Your comment is mental… the reason they can’t spend because they don’t make enough money….
@CxdxvnmbhhvI don't think it shud b about how much you make, it's their money, spend as much as they like, billionaires are billionaires, all a deflection to stop anyone challenging the top 4/5, cartel
They can spend exactly what they earn. They can't inject billions from Saudi owners and make a massive loss though.
Newcastle aren't in debt, manu for example are billions in debt.
@@TheNotSoFakeNews They wouldn't make a loss if the owners put the money in. That's kind of the point.
I would ask where the premier league was when Mike Ashley filled St james park with sports direct free advertising?
Why what's the issue with that?
@@BurnCKC under the rules at the time, any advertising for products or services in a ground needed to be paid for, what he did was he put up all his gaudy signage and used St. James' park as free advertising for his business and didn't pay a penny to the club for that privilege instead he paid a 'maintenance fee' to keep them up and the prem basically did the whole 'we don't see anything wrong here', so as a *DIRECT* result of that going on for over a decade, it cost NUFC roughly 20-30 MILLION per season in advertising revenues, to use a modern day example, imagine the king of the rats down at MU using all the advertising hoardings around old trafford and plastering ineos brading everywhere, not paying for that advertising space, and as a result MU lost an average of £20m per season, do you think the prem would allow such a thing knowing that one of their ivory tower mafia was being taken advantage of?
@@BurnCKC It stripped Newcastle of its commercial revenue as Mike Ashley wasn't paying anything for the advertising space. So it proves the prem are fine with related party sponsors being under value (in Newcastles case zero) but not ok if it's over value. Which is stonewall proof that the rules are only there to prevent clubs from competing at the top and not there to protect them from going into financial ruin.
Man City fans been calling out how awful the system is for a decade, whether that be PSR or FFP. Newcastle for about 5 years. No one cared when the obvious flaws were pointed out then and how the system was built to benefit a select few. Now that basically every club is being held back from investing now its not fit for purpose. Shows that all the people who never called it out for years either didn't have a clue or just pushing an agenda.
Not every club. Just a few who spend ridiculously. Including Forest, who damn near bought a whole new squad and Everton who bought poor players and paid them ridiculous wages.
@@YanYnwa 1 - I didn't say every club. I said basically every club. 2 - Investing well and investing badly makes no difference. If a business makes a decision to spend money to attempt to achieve their goals they should be allowed to do that.
Why did City keep on voting in favour of the rules then?
@@BlueBloodPenn A bit like Leeds United going bankrupt in 2007 and the Russian Sugar Daddy saving Ken Bates Chelsea from the same fate ?
@@BlueBloodPennbasically every club means every club.
Cmon Newcastle owners get the tea lady sold for £25m 😂😂😂
she's broon breed ⚰️
The nonsense of Chelsea selling their assets to themselves and the fact that other club owners chose to allow it shows exactly why the UK ought to install an independent regulator. They can say it's not technically cheating, but it obviously is, and smaller clubs who have been sanctioned ought to use it as grounds to sue on the basis of unfair treatment.
UEFA don't allow what Chelsea have done for their FFP rules, so it'll be interesting to see what happens. Anyway, Chelsea are just can-kicking, eventually they'll run out of things to sell to themselves.
Scrap PSR and replace it with a system where all clubs have the same budget allowed for players to make it a level playing field.
💯 agree. rather than focusing on how much you can spend. Make the league competitive from day one. Give each club the same budget. As it strands, it’s just about outspending each other. That’s the only reason players started going for 100mil when actually we should be looking to bring the spending down for everyone and make everything sustainable. Clubs don’t have wealth, owners have wealth. We should be making it about the league and protecting competition for everyone, not just the top teams who have unlimited money.
Newcastle United have been a major part of English football over the years …fair enough to say they’ve been cannon fodder and at times little more than a nursery club .. so its a bit sad that there has been very little support from teams that one day may find them selfs in a similar situation! …also it undoubtedly diminishes the prestige of teams who benefit from these rules ..would it really have been such a bad thing if Newcastle were allowed to pay over the odds for guehi ? Palace would have possibly spent on other players ! …
Newcastle benefited from the PSR rules as that's how they were able to get Anthony Gordon.
@@JayEFC1969 probably fair to say they were not hindered by PSR rules for that one player at that one time …but your clutching at straws if your trying to make a case for the rules being fair..Good luck in your new stadium… methinks you may revisit your thoughts on PSR in the not to distant future .
@@JayEFC1969 your lot massively helped with that more than any financial rules ever could, you hounded him out of the club and actively terrorised the lad, absolutely pathetic.
All designed to keep the "big six" the big six, have you walked into the premier league offices? There are 6 banners with club crests on the wall, which clubs do you think they are?
Hmmm. Let's see which clubs have benefitted from the most owner funding over the last 5 years:
Everton £598m
Fulham £456m
Villa £453m
Chelsea £379m
Arsenal £272m
Leicester £282m
Newcastle £173m
We'll jump down to the bottom two clubs now...
Liverpool MINUS £26m
Man United MINUS £112m
Fact is, the FFP regs allow wealthy owners to pump a LOT of money into clubs, and for things like infrastructure, womens team, youth teams etc the amount is unlimited.
If the big six as you put it really wanted to keep smaller clubs from receiving investment they would have gone with a system where clubs could only spend a percentage of revenues. They could also have tried to force a less equitable sharing of TV money, afterall it's the biggest clubs that really drive TV money, yet TV money is shared more equally than in any other league.
this is such an uneducated argument.
psr is killing man utd right now... they would be the single biggest beneficiary of psr scrappage. ineos are worth 60bn+... if it wasn't for psr, they could literally lift the entire debt off utd in one swoop. utd, along with Newcastle, would be able to go heavy
this "red cartel" only exists in the minds of feeble ppl
Chelsea take the mick out of PSR and FFP
😭😭😭😭
Being in London clearly provides great benefits when selling assets, but equally, when it comes to a stadium upgrade or buying other assets, it’s a tremendous disadvantage. Goes both ways, Kevin.
You can see by current transfer window, nobody is spending except Man City, the whole system is corrupt and put in to help the bigger clubs only
You cant blame City for having a lot of credit in the bank
Selling car parks, hotels to groups within the ownership are APT & as such need to be assessed by an independent panel BEFORE any sale.
PIF worth is over £700Bn not £400Bn btw 😂
PRS is driving down the value of every club
I did agree with Jordan that owners should be allowed some more freedom to spend within a couple of years after a takeover, then normal rules apply after that.
PSR is a joke
Cmon Newcastle sell Artetas penny floaters in the club shop forr 1 million a ball
These rules will only ultimately damage the Premier League, and therefore down the road every club in it. So those voting for it are committing an act of self harm
PSR should not be revenue based, the fact it is protects the established clubs and by definition is anti-competitive. It is protectionism. How can any rules regarding financial stability not account for debt? You are encouraging companies to operate at a loss by having this PSR allowance whilst not counting any debt. That is not how any business should be run.
Alternatively, every owner should put operating costs for 5-10 years in escrow thereby securing financial stability then every club should receive the same amount of media money and we should establish an annual spend, the same for every club based on that.
Whilst PSR is revenue based, there will always be that need to drive prices up, which ultimately affects the fans.
Debt is counted. Interest payments are counted as an expense for PSR. MUFC for example has interest payments of about £36m per year as an expense against PSR. Whereas clubs like Brighton and Villa who have received interest free loans from their owners have zero expense against PSR for their debt....though with the changes to the APT regs from now on owner/shareholder loans can no longer be zero rated, they have to be at market rate (you can thank City for screwing over clubs with that one).
TV money is shared more equitably than in any other major league. That's why the PL has been such a success, even the smaller clubs in the league can outspend virtually every club on the continent.
The idea that every club should have the same budget is ridiculous. The big clubs would have about £400m cash every year that they weren't allowed to spend. They wouldn't be able to compete for top players, revenues for the league would collapse, the PL would nosedive into oblivion.
There is no difference between Chelsea's group structure and Arsenal's group structure.
Both clubs have roughly 10-15 group companies, and both shift assets between the group companies - Arsenal used inter-company loans and cash.
Surely if there are clubs even close to breaking them clubs should be notified well in advance
If the Premier League is going to keep docking points each season, then they need to start doing this at the very beginning of the season so players and managers know what they are dealing with from the very off. Because it’s deeply unfair to the current players and managers who have absolutely nothing to do with club errors from years ago. Psychologically, it is very damaging to feel like you are constantly running up a hill/spinning in circles with points being randomly docked at will halfway through the season and into the latter portions of the season. Particularly for sides that are struggling to stay up. And optically, it is absolutely ridiculous that City’s case has extended on for years with zero points deductions while much smaller clubs get points deducted at will. Regardless of the actual legal proceedings, it makes a mockery of the table to see less thans quickly punished while City don’t lose a single point.
The 21-24 PSR period ended 30th June. It takes time to compile and audit accounts. Then they have to send them to the PL by end of calendar year. Then the PL has to review the accounts. The punishment has to be during the season, you can't have the PL saying "yes this club has failed PSR, but we'll hold off punishing them until the following season". Failing PSR automatically confers a sporting advantage, and the club has had that advantage this season, so the punishment has to be this season.
Chelsea aren't just based in London but a prime estate area of London.
Its quite clear that certain teams (in red) are getting the PL to do everything to stop teams challenging them. Its disgusting
Still won't see fans protesting outside Premier League HQ though...
silly rules to protect the corrupt cartel clubs at the top of the food chain - the sooner impartial third party independent oversight of the league is implemented, the sooner we might see a more level playing field and actual fair competition
Who decided the best way protect fans from there clubs going bust was “if a club takes on too much debt they should lose points so they get relegated and drastically reduce their income on an inflated wage bill caused by the over spend? “Maybe the same people that want to join an exclusive European super league?
Has anyone calculated how much investment has been lost to the Premier League clubs due to PSR
I also thought that FFP was to help stop clubs buying players to buy success. Everton were told that the stadium costs would not be counted towards FFP by the PL - who then changed their minds! Everton one of the few clubs with a net profit on player transfers and still hammered (more than any other club) by the PL. Forest basically bought a whole new squad (which is now paying off in terms of on-field success to the detriment of other clubs) and got a lower points deduction! Its all a complete mess.
A set of rules which I dont believe anyone actually knows the true effect of. Its cant be a coincedence that it only came into effect after 2021 when PIF entered the league, been around for 10 years prior but 30th June and 31st December deadlines only a thing last two years.
As soon as it starts to hurt Man Utd and Liverpool it will get scrapped…rapidly approaching that point soon now Man Utd need a huge re-build and Liverpool potentially losing 3 best players for free
For US..Bristol City since 2017-18.
Kelly, , Bryan, Scott, Semenyo, Reid.
All sold to PL..all linked in some ways to FFP.
It needs revamping in some way to even the competition out. We cant have teams being owned by nation states given free reign who could basically buy anyone they like and pay whatever they like in wages. At the same time, ambitious clubs like Newcastle need to be able to fairly compete without getting points deductions.
It just says to investors that it is not worth bothering owning a club. Who knows which club was next in line to be bought out by an ambitious backer, but now they have decided not to go down that route.
Always enjoy Kieran Maguire’s take.
How about when u buy a club you can have 1 transfer window where u can buy anyone u want that would make it ineresting 😮
That’s what Newcastle did and now they’re paying for it?
Regarding Academy players; you need homegrown players to have full squad of 25, and as injuries this season have proven, you need a full squad.
Championship Clubs have been selling Home Grown players for years to help comply with P&S/PSR- didn't see anyone moaning then!
They have to raise it, to comply with inflation. 220m should be today’s cap.
It really isn’t rocket science.
If they don’t, the Premier league will take a huge step backwards in the coming years, losing players to foreign leagues.
For the sake of keeping it competitive, I think the rules are important.... but my take on it is, when a rich owner takes on a club, they should sign some form of contract that stipulates any debt should be able to be covered by that owner and if the club is sold, that debt cannot remain in any fashion. Basically, assurance that the club itself should not owe money and the debt to be attached/set against the owner of the club, to summarise. I guess to play devil's advocate against myself, you then invite owners to have firesales of assets if they can't cover it personally which is obviously disastrous for the clubs future.
I think it might need tweaking, but we certainly shouldn't allow clubs to spend whatever they want. This will super inflate wages EVEN further ( remember most clubs are lossing money) ...Clubs should be self-sufficient, because once the rich owner gets bored the clubs are in trouble. (Sheffield wednesday, reading even Chelsea (yes more he couldnt support them ) before the take over .
Considering its PSR (Profit and sustainability!) its crazy the rule already allows losses of £105m... Lastly, these rich owners CAN spend what they like on infrastructure and youth setups. ( Doesnt count to PSR!). So why not develop the grounds ( increase revenue) and training facilities. Its not all about just buying players
Ahh we don't like the way clubs are playing within the rules so let's change the rules, what utter bullshit.
Building hotels dose not effect a clubs PSR so HOW can selling them hotels PROFIT clubs PRS...
FFP is only fair for the already big clubs - its basically anti-competitive.
FA and league should refrain from any action until they sort out Man City.
Chelsea selling the womens team for over 100M is a joke. All the teams lose money and arent in any way close to having that kind of value. The rules are stupid and only got bought in to prevent new owners with money breaking up the cartel at the top.
Just overspend and take the points hit.
All clubs are using every trick in the book, currently.
The premier league will implode. Serving the top six is not ‘fair play’. Buying best players based upon best turnover and profit is not a fair system.
No one can possibly break into the top six.
Clubs should be able to spend what they want .
lo and behold no charges for anyone!
Liverpool do it and have won EVERYTHING the last 6 years and are financially in a great position
Recruit better
No club has been done for PSR this time round 😂😂
Spend spend spend. All people want to do is spend. Why can’t we just spend less? Why is the only way to have the best league, to be able to spend the most? Why can’t we just have a competitive league and be happy with it? It’s always about the next 100mil player or the 500k wages. Other leagues are doing just fine without being the best league in the world. People complaining that clubs aren’t spending in Jan. Why is it all about who you can buy. Just play football!!! It’s mad that a couple of clubs can just buy the league already. We should be focusing on making the full league competitive, ratter than focusing on limiting for some and raising for others. Every club in the league should have the same limits rather than helping the top teams pull away. They all get enough money from TV to put in a transfer pot each year.
So not looking at City at all....ridiculous
Probably controversial (I've had many an argument with my mates about this), but let clubs spend what they want... if they go bust then tough! I could do that with my business if I wanted.. go into debt employing a few extra salesmen and if it went bust then that's on me.
Why be so precious with football clubs? Plenty of clubs have gone out of business over the years.
The new, big money spent by the clubs would all trickle down eventually to the lower leagues.
Q: Could a club like Forest claim double jeopardy if they have already been punished for an overlapping 3 year period?
Nope. You have to pass each rolling 3-year PSR period. You don't get to wipe the slate clean.
Here’s how to sum it up for how dumb the prem are nearly all leagues with rules like this adjust for inflation of the league and money made by the league since the introduction prices and wages have gone up but the psr regs have not increased so it’s broken and clubs are handcuffed they need to increase PSR to adjust for the inflation in football or no clubs down the bottom will progress and we will continue to see yoyo championship/prem teams and more teams who fall down several leagues after relegation from the prem becuase they had to spend to try and best relegation beyond there means it’s insane that selling young English acedemy players is only alternative
Inflation in football was cause by nation states owning clubs, and premier league teams paying insane money to European clubs. You can’t cause hyper inflation and then complain the inflation you caused is hampering you 🤣🤣🤣🤣
@@blinkin78Man U, Chelsea paid stupid money for average players and they aren't state owned.
The alternative we scrap the rules and let Saudi Arabia and Abu Dhabi run wild with their unlimited wealth.
Would rather see the system altered to make it better than all regulation be removed
Newcastle DONT have to sell Isak ffs 😂
Regardless thst will be forest and Everton on the chopping board as the premier league hate us
apparently in City's case about 10 years
The league rules are literally set by the constitute clubs.
14 clubs can make a majority change to any of the rules. But they are all too shortsighted to get a leg over their immediate rivals. While the champs league clubs stretch further away.
Stephan Borsen is clueless and smells faintly of cabbage
lol imagine if this wasn’t a thing
The prem would be
1: Newcastle
2: Man City
3: Aston Villa or Chelsea
4: Arsenal or forest or Liverpool
Looks better without Man Utd doesn’t it . 😂
Everton were docked 8 points
How are they handcuffed? there as never been so much money available to these clubs! thing is they are all in massive debt, the more money they give you on your credit card the more you will spend!
If these rules stand then I truly believe the premier league will be taken to arbitration yet again
Where's man city in all of this ???? 🤔
It’s not coincidence that now Man U have got themselves into a financial New’s the rules are not fit for purpose
Benty could never be more wrong.
UERA rules are making losses even tighter. Plus, it is likely Chelsea will lose all their money from the Conference as UEFA do not accept hotel sales nor womens team sales.
I can see my club everton getting docked again if its up to them showere
So hes ok with a country like Saudi Arabia using a football club to sportswash the fact that theyre a medieval state. We need some morality back in football
No doubt you did nt raise these concerns when the US and Russia bought clubs , only when it happened to Newcastle
Prem league determined to push the super league.
How can being allowed to lose 35m a year be sustainable for any club?
The only clubs FFP/PSR protect are the top clubs, they're protected from clubs with owners who want success not dividends.
Every single club loses money
@blinkin78 No, they don't.
@@craiglee3653 4 prem teams made a profit in the previous financial year. It’s why ffp was brought it, to stop clubs posting insane loses (Leeds, Portsmouth, Bolton etc) and nearly going under like bury did. You obviously have no idea
You're only saying that because you want lottery clubs to be able to buy trophies.
If you had any intelligence, you'd realise that this will ultimately make it even harder for clubs at lower levels who didn't win a lottery.
Make money by being sensible and being better on the pitch by investing in your academies.
@TheMercWithMouth If you had any intelligence, you'd know money would filter down to the smaller clubs!
For the first time in the history of football, there have been financial regulations all to protect the greedy clubs, and more clubs are struggling than ever before!
So your post is nothing more than waffle. Which of the entitled clubs do you support?
What's the timescale in charges...?
ask Man City 😅
Selling a carpark and a hotel to yourselves 😂 The Premier League is just a joke. They dont even hide their bias to the "big 6"
Is Garnacho homegrown?
Super league on its way due to certain club not being allowed to spend there own money
Our FA are inept and will destroy the premier league
Its good for football but it definately needs tweaking.F1,NBA all have restrictions
Football talk ends up being a CNBC balance sheet discussion where teams cannot compete. I fail to see how it’s good for football.
Have to sell isak?? Wtf? Lol
Car park 😂
In the rules, nothing that says u can’t do that. There was legit a vote to try stop it a few years ago and the clubs couldn’t agree on it
Shouldn't have voted for them, then. Too bad.
Bunch of cry baby who want to spend money they don't have and can't afford to pay it back.
If you could afford paying it your rich owners would lend you it.
Try get some fan base, little success by being SMART with youre money, make couple huge sakes re invest , more success then the big sponsorship deals come, the ucl and then you can take your billion £ loan you can afford to repay.
Obviously the rules arent working .why dont they say every 2 years have a transfer window where they drop the rules and u can buy anyone u want 😂
Newcastle signed aload of players and used up their allowance… and got into the champions league… unlike others clubs of their size.
Manchester United has reported net losses for each of the past four fiscal years:
Fiscal Year 2024: Net loss of £113.2 million.
Fiscal Year 2023: Net loss of £28.7 million.
Fiscal Year 2022: Net loss of £115.5 million.
Fiscal Year 2021: Net loss of £92.2 million.
PSR is for the cartel clubs
But City have had 115 Charges hanging over them for year's now ??? Make it make sense 😆
Does make me laugh how as soon as a club is fucked it's PSR's fault. Don't see LFC and Spurs complaining about PSR because they run their clubs as your suppose to. I do think the PSR limit should be increased but it's not PSR's problem that clubs want to piss away money.
LFC and Spurs have a higher revenue stream than other clubs, so they can spend more and be out of PSR, and are favoured by the PL. So using them as an example isn't worth it. PSR is skewed towards the 'top 6'. Others have to plan for relegation and sell their best players, or best youth talent to stay afloat of the rules. It's broken, it doesn't work and stops ambition from other clubs. We as fans didn't want a super league, but the premier league are doing a fine job protecting the bigger clubs and it's effectively is one now.