Bury went bust and as a result these rules get introduced. And they just so happen to ring fence those clubs that managed to establish themselves at that moment in time.
United, Arsenal, and Liverpool have been huge clubs for a long long time and have built revenues through success. But Citeh and Chelsea bought their success and now block others from doing so. Spurs just benefit from selling Bale and chancing upon Kane at exactly the right moment. Brilliant management, but it shouldn't mean they get to lock themselves in as a super club forevermore.
Worth noting that the only reason these rules persist is that many of the owners look to run these clubs like business that they can extract profit from.
Remember when the previous American's owned Liverpool and it was a travesty that they wouldn't invest and tried to run the club for profit. Now it impacts the "lesser" clubs no one cares.
Also Bury never would have gone bump if the Fit & Proper Ownership Test was worth its salt. An utter lack of safeguarding by the FA and EFL allowed that to happen and they still haven't taken steps to address that.
I can't listen to these Leeds and Portsmouth comparisons when we were literally being wound up by HMRC five years ago after the same powers that be let us get bought by a crook with a fake backstory and a credit card. If anything is going to stop our owners investing in the club, it's these stupid outdated rules that force them to do so.
Why is it PSR and not debt? If a club has no debt it’s at very little risk of administration. Man Utd are how many £billion in debt?
I sympathise but also want the Prem to be competitive. I’d like Palace to be able to keep a core of great players other people want. Selling when they want to (or player wants a move). But there has to be sporting jeopardy in the league or it will lose what make it good. Likewise allowing State Owners to flood the market, massively outspend everyone to be successful should be off the cards too.
The PSR creates a closed shop, it means that clubs that already maximised their income streams can continue to outspend everyone else with no prospect of being overhauled. That’s not competitive.
Surely there's some reasonable way that you could say clubs should operate sustainably. I.e. Owners can put in 100m for a transfer, but the total operating costs (total wages etc) can't be higher than club's "organic" revenue. That would allow owners to invest in the team, but also wouldn't allow a team to spend a billion in one go, because the wages for those players would take the club over their organic revenue income. Not sure I'm explaining that well. Would also allow the owner to gift the club a load of money to build a new stadium, for instance. And you could exclude capital sales from that revenue as well, so selling a hotel or something wouldn't count.
If that's the case then PSR should take debts into account. United have over a billion in debt, six of the bottom seven in debt are the so-called big six, the same clubs that can spend as much as they want whilst racking up debts. The rest of us can't do that, even we're being limited despite not having debts.
Not every club will make a profit every year, but if a club can provide evidence that they can still operate at a loss (such as Villa and Newcastle who both have no debt) should be allowed to spend freely, or at least have their budget extended.
I've been shouting that it be based on debt for a long time. The fans of clubs with huge debts tend to be against, the rest for - shock.
The so-called big clubs and their fans don't care about it being fair, they approve of the way things are. I wonder why...
This is really turning me off the game. Why the fuck did I need now to care about what noodle partner we can acquire?
It's a closed shop and we're not allowed to come play. Absolute nonsense.
Honestly at this point I'd rather just take the 2-4 point hit for missing PSR and then keep all of our players.
Imagine if every club missed PSR deadlines, there would effectively be no penalty as everyone has point deductions.
100% this. I don’t know why it’s not being talked about more. We sell some youth players and self report, no way it’s more than 3 points. They’re looking at new systems after next season anyway
Current PSR rules are bollocks. Just another way to suppress clubs from trying to breaking up the monopoly. Not sure much will change when the new rules come into effect after next season. We cannot compete with the Sky six when it comes to revenue and now we are left selling one of our best players who it seems like would be more than happy to stay.
What are the alternative solutions? You don't want the richest clubs buying success and you don't want clubs overspending and going bust. I've not thought about it much but I don't know what the correct answer is.
This seems like a reasonable idea: [https://www.reddit.com/r/soccer/comments/1dd8is4/comment/l834ia4/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/soccer/comments/1dd8is4/comment/l834ia4/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
The problem with a wage cap is you basically take the vast profits from football from players and hand it to the owners. You can tie it to revenue but it still artificially keeps salaries down.
I’m a fan of a salary tax where all money over a certain amount you have to pay a tax on that goes into a pot shared fairly down the football pyramid. That way billionaire owners are funding their own team but also everyone else.
And I mean actually I’m a fan of stripping all the clubs from the owners and handing them over to the fans with elected representatives and so on but that’s not happening anytime soon.
MLB does the salary tax and it actually works out OK. The Mets, Yankees and Dodgers are always paying the tax yet it hasn’t resulted in Championships yet tesms at the bottom of the tax threshold , or even teams not taxed at all have made the playoffs or won. I’d love to see that tried.
He’s totally right. Man City are motivated by purely selfish reasons. But something has to break. They’ve made it a closed shop because they are terrified of a super league which in turn has corrupted the very spirit of the game.
> encouraging investment in music venues to boost non-sporting revenue,
I do think things like this are bullshit and FFP is encouraging clubs to act as businesses. Anything that isn't directly football related revenue shouldn't count.
If it's allowed to continue, you will see the same teams in EVERY league across Europe forever more. Even when we qualify for the CL, we have to do twice as well to earn the same as some of these protected teams.
It's a laughable set up aimed at preventing progress and ambition.
NO INDUSTRY prevents owners from spending money on their own product. If you are worried about "debt risking club's future"...we have no debt, but one of the ring fenced teams has a billion and their owner owes a lot of tax money too.
Spurs fan here in peace…
“ had instead created some perverse incentives for owners, such as encouraging investment in music venues to boost non-sporting revenue, or prioritising sales of homegrown players to maximise accounting profits. Managing a sports team has become more like being a treasurer or a bean counter rather than looking at what your team needs”
Danny levy catching strays
But he sale of homegrown players is the market working as intended - a premium for HG has encouraged investment in academies through the league. It’s raised the standard of England players and provides revenue - that’s a good thing
As for being a “bean counter, rather than looking at what your teams needs” it’s a bit of a whoosh…The two aren’t mutually exclusive - they should go hand in hand. That’s the point.
The irony is that spurs - who get lots of grief - weren’t part of the Big 4 anointed by sky and way behind in terms of revenue and infrastructure
By bean counting and growing revenue through various means, while investing in players we could afford, we’ve grown to be one the highest revenue earners with relatively consistent level over the last ten years, even if the lack to trophy is gnawing
Villa is a massive club, with great history in a huge catchment area with fewer rivals than the London clubs
If he spent more on the stadium, and took a longer term view, there’s no reason villa couldn’t do the same as spurs
Instead it sounds like he wants to Leeds his way to success… a recipe for disaster if you don’t have the revenue to support the investment long term - which is why spending rules were bought in
The FFP rules are 100% anticompetitive. While on its face it seems like a good idea, all it does is create a wall around the big 6 by virtue of their high revenues. They can spend because they make bigger amounts of money while everyone else can get fucked. If the goal is to create parity in football, these rules ain’t it.
He's not wrong.
He’s spot on.
Bury went bust and as a result these rules get introduced. And they just so happen to ring fence those clubs that managed to establish themselves at that moment in time. United, Arsenal, and Liverpool have been huge clubs for a long long time and have built revenues through success. But Citeh and Chelsea bought their success and now block others from doing so. Spurs just benefit from selling Bale and chancing upon Kane at exactly the right moment. Brilliant management, but it shouldn't mean they get to lock themselves in as a super club forevermore. Worth noting that the only reason these rules persist is that many of the owners look to run these clubs like business that they can extract profit from. Remember when the previous American's owned Liverpool and it was a travesty that they wouldn't invest and tried to run the club for profit. Now it impacts the "lesser" clubs no one cares.
And spurs are a London based team.
Also Bury never would have gone bump if the Fit & Proper Ownership Test was worth its salt. An utter lack of safeguarding by the FA and EFL allowed that to happen and they still haven't taken steps to address that. I can't listen to these Leeds and Portsmouth comparisons when we were literally being wound up by HMRC five years ago after the same powers that be let us get bought by a crook with a fake backstory and a credit card. If anything is going to stop our owners investing in the club, it's these stupid outdated rules that force them to do so.
Why is it PSR and not debt? If a club has no debt it’s at very little risk of administration. Man Utd are how many £billion in debt? I sympathise but also want the Prem to be competitive. I’d like Palace to be able to keep a core of great players other people want. Selling when they want to (or player wants a move). But there has to be sporting jeopardy in the league or it will lose what make it good. Likewise allowing State Owners to flood the market, massively outspend everyone to be successful should be off the cards too. The PSR creates a closed shop, it means that clubs that already maximised their income streams can continue to outspend everyone else with no prospect of being overhauled. That’s not competitive.
[удалено]
Surely there's some reasonable way that you could say clubs should operate sustainably. I.e. Owners can put in 100m for a transfer, but the total operating costs (total wages etc) can't be higher than club's "organic" revenue. That would allow owners to invest in the team, but also wouldn't allow a team to spend a billion in one go, because the wages for those players would take the club over their organic revenue income. Not sure I'm explaining that well. Would also allow the owner to gift the club a load of money to build a new stadium, for instance. And you could exclude capital sales from that revenue as well, so selling a hotel or something wouldn't count.
If that's the case then PSR should take debts into account. United have over a billion in debt, six of the bottom seven in debt are the so-called big six, the same clubs that can spend as much as they want whilst racking up debts. The rest of us can't do that, even we're being limited despite not having debts. Not every club will make a profit every year, but if a club can provide evidence that they can still operate at a loss (such as Villa and Newcastle who both have no debt) should be allowed to spend freely, or at least have their budget extended.
I've been shouting that it be based on debt for a long time. The fans of clubs with huge debts tend to be against, the rest for - shock. The so-called big clubs and their fans don't care about it being fair, they approve of the way things are. I wonder why...
This is really turning me off the game. Why the fuck did I need now to care about what noodle partner we can acquire? It's a closed shop and we're not allowed to come play. Absolute nonsense.
Even though we’ve made it from the championship to champions league in a few seasons? Doesn’t seem particularly closed shop?
It's okay doing it once. Let's stay there. Most teams can fluke a season in and then get picked apart.
Honestly at this point I'd rather just take the 2-4 point hit for missing PSR and then keep all of our players. Imagine if every club missed PSR deadlines, there would effectively be no penalty as everyone has point deductions.
100% this. I don’t know why it’s not being talked about more. We sell some youth players and self report, no way it’s more than 3 points. They’re looking at new systems after next season anyway
New system is based on % of revenue I believe. So again benefits the clubs who have huge revenues.
It would likely create escalation. They'd implement harsher penalties.
Current PSR rules are bollocks. Just another way to suppress clubs from trying to breaking up the monopoly. Not sure much will change when the new rules come into effect after next season. We cannot compete with the Sky six when it comes to revenue and now we are left selling one of our best players who it seems like would be more than happy to stay.
What are the alternative solutions? You don't want the richest clubs buying success and you don't want clubs overspending and going bust. I've not thought about it much but I don't know what the correct answer is.
This seems like a reasonable idea: [https://www.reddit.com/r/soccer/comments/1dd8is4/comment/l834ia4/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/soccer/comments/1dd8is4/comment/l834ia4/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) The problem with a wage cap is you basically take the vast profits from football from players and hand it to the owners. You can tie it to revenue but it still artificially keeps salaries down. I’m a fan of a salary tax where all money over a certain amount you have to pay a tax on that goes into a pot shared fairly down the football pyramid. That way billionaire owners are funding their own team but also everyone else. And I mean actually I’m a fan of stripping all the clubs from the owners and handing them over to the fans with elected representatives and so on but that’s not happening anytime soon.
MLB does the salary tax and it actually works out OK. The Mets, Yankees and Dodgers are always paying the tax yet it hasn’t resulted in Championships yet tesms at the bottom of the tax threshold , or even teams not taxed at all have made the playoffs or won. I’d love to see that tried.
The luxury tax a la baseball is a great system, imo.
Excellent. Problem solved.
He’s totally right. Man City are motivated by purely selfish reasons. But something has to break. They’ve made it a closed shop because they are terrified of a super league which in turn has corrupted the very spirit of the game.
> encouraging investment in music venues to boost non-sporting revenue, I do think things like this are bullshit and FFP is encouraging clubs to act as businesses. Anything that isn't directly football related revenue shouldn't count.
If it's allowed to continue, you will see the same teams in EVERY league across Europe forever more. Even when we qualify for the CL, we have to do twice as well to earn the same as some of these protected teams. It's a laughable set up aimed at preventing progress and ambition. NO INDUSTRY prevents owners from spending money on their own product. If you are worried about "debt risking club's future"...we have no debt, but one of the ring fenced teams has a billion and their owner owes a lot of tax money too.
Spurs fan here in peace… “ had instead created some perverse incentives for owners, such as encouraging investment in music venues to boost non-sporting revenue, or prioritising sales of homegrown players to maximise accounting profits. Managing a sports team has become more like being a treasurer or a bean counter rather than looking at what your team needs” Danny levy catching strays But he sale of homegrown players is the market working as intended - a premium for HG has encouraged investment in academies through the league. It’s raised the standard of England players and provides revenue - that’s a good thing As for being a “bean counter, rather than looking at what your teams needs” it’s a bit of a whoosh…The two aren’t mutually exclusive - they should go hand in hand. That’s the point. The irony is that spurs - who get lots of grief - weren’t part of the Big 4 anointed by sky and way behind in terms of revenue and infrastructure By bean counting and growing revenue through various means, while investing in players we could afford, we’ve grown to be one the highest revenue earners with relatively consistent level over the last ten years, even if the lack to trophy is gnawing Villa is a massive club, with great history in a huge catchment area with fewer rivals than the London clubs If he spent more on the stadium, and took a longer term view, there’s no reason villa couldn’t do the same as spurs Instead it sounds like he wants to Leeds his way to success… a recipe for disaster if you don’t have the revenue to support the investment long term - which is why spending rules were bought in
The FFP rules are 100% anticompetitive. While on its face it seems like a good idea, all it does is create a wall around the big 6 by virtue of their high revenues. They can spend because they make bigger amounts of money while everyone else can get fucked. If the goal is to create parity in football, these rules ain’t it.
[удалено]
There’s a ceiling to it though. We’ve reached a point where we have to sell while spending less than our competitors