Chrysalis

Thats a reason to keep the nonsense have now? People look for flaws as an excuse to keep an inferior system.

I dont know if you trying to pick it up apart, but I will answer. The big difference between reducing spending limits based on debt and revenue, is that the former is a obvious direct risk to the club, if we taking the health of clubs seriously then debt should be part of the system. Also yes, the income of the lowest club would be a big part in the spending allowance, this would also incentive things like more equally spread TV revenue, as then a larger spending limit from the smallest club also means a larger spending limit for the biggest club. Excess income could be used to make the sport more accessible, lower ticket prices, stadium investment, local schemes for the area etc. There is no perfect standard, but this would be a clear improvement over what we have now, and level playing field spending limits are already a thing in other sports, its not a untested concept.

Did you see davieG's post? plenty of clubs before and after us, including clubs after us before the rules changed. If you cant at least keep things accurate then I cant have a rational discussion with you.

For sporting fairness, you have the same spending cap for every entity, basing it on revenue it isnt a level playing field, I dont know why you struggling to understand that. I would do fixed cap on squad spend, and this cap is reduced if the club is in debt. Forced action of some kind, if get to point wages, bills, taxes stop been paid.

I dont suggest going down this road, as it indicates sour grapes plus like many other people you are misinformed. The ground has been fully paid for, the admin actually made us pay more since we had to pay rent for a number of years and then later purchased it back. (We also were hamstrung financially for a period of time after, including the EPL season where our TV money was largely unavailable for us to spend, there was no mythical financial boost). I also doubt the rules were done because of us, you know there has been a fair few clubs going into admin, before and after our own admin, and there is this problem that the big clubs want their position protected, so FFP was invented to maintain the status quo, but pretending it was about keeping clubs solvent. People such as yourself have fell for this. Why do some people have an obsession with us? Because we happened to get promoted in a season we went into admin. When we talk about loopholes, we didnt exploit any as there was no FFP at the time, whilst now during PSR/FFP we have clubs exploiting loopholes. But yeah PSR in itself is basically legalised cheating, X club is allowed to spend more because they have bigger revenue. If the system was truly about keeping clubs solvent, it would take account of debt, if the system was truly about being fair, then every club would have the same salary cap and spending limit, not something based on revenues. I dont know what is going through your mind that makes you think your admin was some kind of honourable thing, and ours was with the intent of taking advantage.

Remember how Liverpool got their current owners, the bank financing the club literally threw the old owners out.

This is why its stupid to push right to the limit of PSR, sensible clubs have head room.

No he doesnt, there is this misconception that you must meet book value otherwise there is no gain on PSR, I have had to explain a few times why this is not the case. Its called cutting your losses. Lets say you have 2 years left on a 5 year contract, 40 million amortised over 5 years plus 4 million a year salary. With two years left you have 24 million liability on the books. You sell the player for a million, and no longer have to pay salary, this 24 million liability is now reduced to a 15 million liability, a 9 million gain from the previous position. Clubs routinely do these type of transactions to clear out dead wood, but LCFC are stubborn hence the difficulties we have. Turning down multiple offers for Iversen as an example, to only let him go for nothing and pay an extra couple of years wages. In the world of football you win some and you lose some, KPFC are struggling to understand you cant be assured of selling for what you paid. Its not like the normal business world.

Rudkin wont sell, he will be too obsessed with the book value being met yet again.

I still remember this, Sousa was an absolute disaster, if we had kept him we would have been relegated to league one trying to play tippy tappy. Sven to be fair did improve as a significant amount, but it did also involve some players from a higher level coming down to play for him, and fell apart after that Derby away game where he got figured out. The form under Sven was 2nd in the league, but that wasnt actual 2nd due to the 10 games Sousa had. Then sense came in when Pearson came back and we started making more sensible player acquisitions as well.

There isnt any evidence it offers an improvement to the first team. What do we know? Only a small portion of it is in use by the first team, lots of pitches but the first team doesnt need them all. Fitness levels in terms of injuries and athleticism in games has been nothing but a disaster, currently circa bottom of distance run in games this season. An ex player who has trained at both the old and new new training ground described Seagrave as a SPA type experience. Things like newer cleaner changing rooms, access to a swimming pool, SPA facilities, posh eating facilities, dont improve player physics. The only thing that you could argue would do that is a better gym, but a 100m training complex wasnt needed for a gym upgrade. It might help attract players, but PSR and our player acquisition is such a disaster is it has arguably just made it easier to sign expensive past their best ex EPL players like Ayew and Coady. I think a bigger stadium would have just as much an impact, Martin o neil once said he had to bring players into filbert street walking backwards so they only seen the best stand.

Yep, even then the plans for our stadium are so conservative as well only an 8k increase about 25% boost. 48k would have been a better target and if done within 2 years of title would have been filled.

This a very good signing for Boro. https://www.mfc.co.uk/news/2026/january/09/leo-castledine-signs-from-chelsea/

Just read about that, we will miss her given how influential she is on the pitch.

So if Ricardo legs were gone, who was the 3rd player we had for that position to allow JJ to be dropped? Most of the things JJ was blamed for was not really his fault on an individual level, we just had ignorant fans blaming him, ignoring how the team lost the ball earlier in play etc. He even got blamed for that Forest goal when Ricardo lost possession with a back heel.

Best let it go, it isnt happening. Accept it and then no disappointment later.

Top ball.

Youth or lower league acquisition.

The injury was inevitable, we got lucky it happened before the fat wallet was handed over. I am baffled people are gutted by this.

I would say 18-20k based on that pic. The boycott needs to happen every home game now, I hope the boycotters are prepared to sustain it, a one off wont be enough.

The sun article correctly points out a one match boycott wont achieve much, this needs to happen every home game now until he is gone.

Attendance 27k?

EPL player and the wage he is coming from. He isnt signing for 5k a week.

Taking an expensive punt which will be against the odds is not the way forward. Why are people thinking Antonia will be cheap? Bamford was on a much lower salary, didnt have recently major injury and wasnt nearly 40.

After an extra year. I shouldnt have even replied as you clearly didnt read the post properly that you replied to, too eager to disagree. These are also just the ones that get published, there is approaches that get rebuffed without getting leaked.