PSR RULE CHANGE

[SouthStandUpperTier]

11 minutes ago, Twitcher said:

But then surely so would Man City, so if this is part of the reason for bringing this in, as some have said, it wouldn't save Man. City either.

Nor should it. Although I think the charges aimed at Man City aren't specifically PSR related.

 

 

Edited 4 April by SouthStandUpperTier

[Fox 4 Life]

This supports even more why we must get promoted this season. The EFL will not go down this route and we will get hammered with points and business plans for the next 3 years.

[filbertway]

Whatever they do - I'd probably recommend deciding what is punishable and agreeing on punishments beforehand.

[Scotch]

13 minutes ago, SouthStandUpperTier said:

Lets face it, whatever system of rules they decide to implement is going to be heavily loaded in favour of the 'big 6'.

 

It won't happen, but the fairest system would be the introduction of a flat salary cap, like in the NFL. It would have to be reasonable too. Say £100m per season for your 25 man squad. Like I say though, it would never happen. The PFA wouldn't want it for starters.

I was thinking something similair except more like the MLS. 

There is a flat salary cap for like 22 player but 3 spaces that exist outside that who can be paid whatever...

[Detroit Blues]

58 minutes ago, Nod.E said:

What's the luxury tax? I refuse to visit the fail.

Luxury Tax is the financial mechanism for this sort of problem in Major League Baseball. In this system, teams spending over a certain limit on player wages pay a marginal tax on every dollar spent over the limit into a pot. In 2023, 8/30 teams qualified to pay luxury tax, in the total sum of $210M. 

 

The fund is then split up to pay for player benefits, player retirement funds, and revenue sharing for the poorer/smaller market teams. In the states, it is a controversial practice because it in theory allows teams to overpay for players, creating an unequal playing field where the rich teams (LA Dodgers, NY Yankees, Boston Red Sox, etc.) pay more in luxury tax than some teams pay for their entire squad. Last year, the Dodgers essentially spent $1B on signing two of the best players in the sport. In a way, it is similar to how the Premier League currently operates. The determining factor for how much you are legally allowed to spend on players is dictated on revenue.

 

Unlike all other American Professional sports (NFL, the NBA, etc.) there is no salary cap (maximum teams can spend on players), and there is no salary floor (a minimum investment teams must make on players). Some small market teams take the cash from the TV deal and revenue sharing, and are content fielding terrible teams that do not compete, but net a profit each year. Luckily for the Premier League, relegation would serve to stop this practice. However, at the top level, moving to a luxury tax would allow any team to spend whatever they want on player wages/transfers. In a way, you could argue this is already happening, and teams like Man City and Chelsea just use legal methods to stop any potential punishment. At least with a luxury tax, they will be forced to pay the other 14 clubs they are depriving of a competitive landscape.

 

My personal, totally unbiased opinion, is that this is a step in the right direction. The PSR rules are creating feedback loops where teams that overspend or underachieve end up with points deductions which cause them to fall into a relegation death spiral (see Leicester, Everton, Forest, etc.). This has done nothing to stop big clubs from creating an uncompetitive, entrenched oligarchy where on the basis of higher revenue and better lawyers they can get away with doing whatever they want without fear of reprisal. At least with a luxury tax, the 14 other clubs in the PL will have more parity via revenue sharing.

 

 

[Wasyls Pec Deck]

1 hour ago, Dan LCFC said:

They are in danger of making the game a complete farce (even more than it already is). You're going to force a situation where every club needs to sell players while eliminating all of the buyers.

Haha great point.

 

Re this luxury tax, does that mean we can pay a fine in luxury duty free goods? I’m sure Top could get a batch of cologne to sort out this stench.

[Babylon]

Seriously, how the hell can you plan as a club. I know the club are getting pelters at the minute, but how many times are they going to change the rules?

[SouthStandUpperTier]

1 minute ago, Babylon said:

Seriously, how the hell can you plan as a club. I know the club are getting pelters at the minute, but how many times are they going to change the rules?

The current rules have literally been in place since 2013.

[filbertway]

7 minutes ago, Babylon said:

Seriously, how the hell can you plan as a club. I know the club are getting pelters at the minute, but how many times are they going to change the rules?

Unless they change the amount of income that we're guaranteed, the rules have literally no effect as long as we're not spending beyond our means.

[Chelmofox]

Don't see the point. Might as well do nothing.

 

The purpose of imposing points deductions was to stop owners eating their clubs up racking up silly depts and them buggering off leaving them in the lurch. Yes - i know about strengthening the big 6 but the intention is there for clubs to somewhat live within their means, which the big ones can do better than others.

 

The tax tries to solve the issue by raking up more debt, but pretending that debt is put to some good use. But a charlatan owner who goes 50 mill over the threshold is going to have no issues paying a 5 million tax, because he will just find a way of folding that debt into the club through the normal means.  

 

Just do nothing. Football will eat itself up regardless.

[Red Squirrel]

Realistically all I can see is 2 options:

Let clubs spend what they want (include a luxury tax if you like but distribute that down the pyramid)

Continue with a financial fair play regime which is rigorously and equally enforced and the rules are simple so we all can understand them

 

Trying to construct a middle ground seems nigh on impossible

 

 

[Scotch]

11 minutes ago, Babylon said:

Seriously, how the hell can you plan as a club. I know the club are getting pelters at the minute, but how many times are they going to change the rules?

You don't. The Leicester way. 

[MPH]

42 minutes ago, honeybradger said:

Why are we talking about the big 6? The only clubs that have broken these new PSR rules are relegation scrappers like Everton, Nottingham Forest and ourselves. If we don't want our club getting hit by consecutive points deductions and being thrown into championship mediocrity this is the best case scenario for us.

 

 

So you dont think the likes of Man City are going to look at this and rub their hands with glee?

 

 

[Wymsey]

1 hour ago, StanSP said:

Would this mean Man City avoid punishment? 

Wouldn't be surprised if they had a say in it to an extent..

[Terraloon]

27 minutes ago, SouthStandUpperTier said:

Nor should it. Although I think the charges aimed at Man City aren't specifically PSR related.

 

 

A couple of the charges are PSR breeches but not to do with the £105 m limit.

[FOXSE]

Thinking about this, I can't see how the Premier league can usefully implement these rules in isolation from all the top European leagues.

[filbertway]

6 minutes ago, Chelmofox said:

Don't see the point. Might as well do nothing.

 

The purpose of imposing points deductions was to stop owners eating their clubs up racking up silly depts and them buggering off leaving them in the lurch. Yes - i know about strengthening the big 6 but the intention is there for clubs to somewhat live within their means, which the big ones can do better than others.

 

The tax tries to solve the issue by raking up more debt, but pretending that debt is put to some good use. But a charlatan owner who goes 50 mill over the threshold is going to have no issues paying a 5 million tax, because he will just find a way of folding that debt into the club through the normal means.  

 

Just do nothing. Football will eat itself up regardless.

The fact that instead of wanting to control exorbitant spending (which is the obvious fix) they want to loosen the rules so clubs can spend more exorbitantly is just wild. It really shows that they don't give a damn about the game and just want to milk it for as much money as possible.

[filbertway]

Just now, FOXSE said:

Thinking about this, I can't see how the Premier league can usefully implement these rules in isolation from all the top European leagues.

Clubs playing in Europe would still have to adhere to UEFA's FFP rules I imagine.

 

Which obviously makes no sense - but I wouldn't count on logic being factored into decision making

 

[FOXSE]

Just now, filbertway said:

Clubs playing in Europe would still have to adhere to UEFA's FFP rules I imagine.

 

Which obviously makes no sense - but I wouldn't count on logic being factored into decision making

 

It's not just the clubs playing in Europe though, it's the competitiveness of all clubs playing in those leagues. If the rules are different it can affect competitiveness through player purchases.

[Babylon]

1 minute ago, SouthStandUpperTier said:

The current rules have literally been in place since 2013.

No. They've been tinkered with numerous times. Including UEFA changing their rules just two years ago, which impacted us because at the time we were wanting to compete in Europe, and would have to adhere to them. 

 

The championship ones we fell foul of changed within a season, and again have changed numerous times since. 

 

https://www.financialfairplay.co.uk/#:~:text=Premier League update their FFP rules 25 April 2016&text=Clubs will be able to,during the current TV deal).

[Golden Fox]

8 minutes ago, Chelmofox said:

Don't see the point. Might as well do nothing.

 

The purpose of imposing points deductions was to stop owners eating their clubs up racking up silly depts and them buggering off leaving them in the lurch. Yes - i know about strengthening the big 6 but the intention is there for clubs to somewhat live within their means, which the big ones can do better than others.

 

The tax tries to solve the issue by raking up more debt, but pretending that debt is put to some good use. But a charlatan owner who goes 50 mill over the threshold is going to have no issues paying a 5 million tax, because he will just find a way of folding that debt into the club through the normal means.  

 

Just do nothing. Football will eat itself up regardless.

Spot on... absolutely ridiculous that PSR is there to stop clubs spending too much money and going bust (or underperforming compared to budgeted income like we did) - so if they do spend too much, taking more money off them will just double down on the problem and make it worse - not stop what PSR was set out to achieve. 

 

The luxury tax in Baseball is there to help competitive balance. As MLB is a cartel, they can enforce a salary cap to keep a lid on salaries, and also to put competitive balance in among the teams. However, everyone is happy if teams want to spend over this and put more money in the game - the luxury tax will deter owners from inflating salaries too much & effectively compensate other owners for their teams being less competitive in comparison. A bit different to the intent here.

[Babylon]

16 minutes ago, filbertway said:

Unless they change the amount of income that we're guaranteed, the rules have literally no effect as long as we're not spending beyond our means.

I would suggest paying a fine rather than points deductions is a rather big impact. 

[st albans fox]

16 minutes ago, Wymsey said:

Wouldn't be surprised if they had a say in it to an extent..

I would 

they are now the most profitable of the rich six so have no interest in changing the rules 

[Pliskin]

1 hour ago, StanSP said:

Would this mean Man City avoid punishment? 

Of course haha.

 

Its to save the league, because they will soon realise we will end up like Spain and only have a hand full of teams that can compete, which means there will be a lack of quality players coming into the league! 
 

They’re strangling themselves. 

[honeybradger]

20 minutes ago, MPH said:

 

 

So you dont think the likes of Man City are going to look at this and rub their hands with glee?

 

 

No because Man City are recording profits every season and will continue to do so until they change ownership. Maybe the likes of Chelsea, who have underperformed massively relative to spending, will receive a points deduction at some point but at the end of the day it is clubs like our that are first on the chopping block.