PSR RULE CHANGE

[teblin]

1 hour ago, Ricey said:

Any change will be for next season onwards. It won’t mean that we escape points deductions for last season and this season.

True, but Everton, forest and probably ourselves will call it proof that it wasn’t fit for purpose.

 

not saying it will make any difference 

Edited 4 April by teblin

[filbertway]

21 minutes ago, Babylon said:

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

How does it affect planning though if they know they'll have a minimum revenue coming in?

 

Unless you're planning to run your business poorly and at a loss then the punishment doesn't really matter does it?

[teblin]

34 minutes ago, 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

 

This would then make sure the top 6 would have to curb some spending then. So it might work.

[SouthStandUpperTier]

32 minutes ago, Babylon said:

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).

2016 

 

The £105m allowable loss over 3 years was voted in in 2013 and has stayed the same ever since. And that's the problem. Clubs are only getting pinged for it now because the cost of making any dent in the PL is now more than £35m per season.

 

The problem is that the PSR rules haven't changed with the times. Not that they keep changing.

 

 

Edited 4 April by SouthStandUpperTier

[gp96]

Even if they do change the rules this summer, the most likely outcome will be that the rules still apply until summer 2024. So if you break them up until then, like we look to have, you get the punishment. If they just ended it all there and then it really would be the biggest farce going, even though it would clearly be great news for us.

[LCFCCHRIS]

No idea if this would work  but my ideal scenario would be:

 

A wage cap of  say 50k a week per player

On top of that, EPL mandated bonuses can be earnt (per win, or goal contributions for a striker, clean sheets etc)

 

This would mean that the "Big" clubs can still attract better players than "smaller" because they think they can earn more money in a team more likely to perform. It would also stop players downing tools as they need to perform to make more money.

 

Let's be honest, they are hardly going to starve on their base salary. Some of the wages earnt by shite players is ridiculous, looking at you Chelsea. 

 

Can you imagine the passion you'd see when some of these tw@ts realize they aren't collecting 100k if they lose. 

 

[ClaphamFox]

5 minutes ago, LCFCCHRIS said:

No idea if this would work  but my ideal scenario would be:

 

A wage cap of  say 50k a week per player

On top of that, EPL mandated bonuses can be earnt (per win, or goal contributions for a striker, clean sheets etc)

 

This would mean that the "Big" clubs can still attract better players than "smaller" because they think they can earn more money in a team more likely to perform. It would also stop players downing tools as they need to perform to make more money.

 

Let's be honest, they are hardly going to starve on their base salary. Some of the wages earnt by shite players is ridiculous, looking at you Chelsea. 

 

Can you imagine the passion you'd see when some of these tw@ts realize they aren't collecting 100k if they lose. 

 

I think we should go further and take footballer salaries back to 1950s levels. I want to see the likes of Harry Kane and Mo Salah be forced to get the bus to matches with the fans, and then be forced to run grocery shops and work as driving instructors etc once they retire. 

[Chelmofox]

8 minutes ago, LCFCCHRIS said:

No idea if this would work  but my ideal scenario would be:

 

A wage cap of  say 50k a week per player

On top of that, EPL mandated bonuses can be earnt (per win, or goal contributions for a striker, clean sheets etc)

 

My Dad used to give me £1 for each goal i scored -  so we can start there. Scored a hatrick in the game of my life when i was 13 and got £3. Bought an ice cream on the way home. #makeitreal

[FrankieADZ]

2 hours ago, StanSP said:

Would this mean Man City avoid punishment? 

means the likes of Villa, Newcastle, Man City, Chelsea aka the "big boys" would get away with it

 

honestly no surprise they are going to change it

[SouthStandUpperTier]

Another added bonus of a salary cap (and another reason why it would never happen) is that the 'big 6's' best players would soon start leaving for the Saudi league, making the PL more of a level playing field.

[st albans fox]

3 minutes ago, FrankieADZ said:

means the likes of Villa, Newcastle, Man City, Chelsea aka the "big boys" would get away with it

 

honestly no surprise they are going to change it

The rules are set to end June 24.  The clubs you listed above will have to sell this season. 

[Bilo]

We won't escape a points deduction as we broke the rules in the period when a points deduction applied. However, it would mean that we would be less restricted in the transfer market if promoted and would have less of a need to have to sell key players or go bargain hunting for fear of future points deductions.

 

To be fair, the current rules aren't working and threaten a genuinely farcical situation.

[lcfcbluearmy]

3 hours ago, MPH said:

 

 

This will basically be the end of any PSR 'regulations'  Most clubs who are overspending will just happily take the hit of a few more million on  top and carry on overspending. It would basically be a green light to the top 6 to keep doing what they are doing.

PSR is already a green light for the top 6 to keep doing what they are doing it only really effects the smaller clubs and punishes investment

[Adster]

3 hours ago, MPH said:

 

 

This will basically be the end of any PSR 'regulations'  Most clubs who are overspending will just happily take the hit of a few more million on  top and carry on overspending. It would basically be a green light to the top 6 to keep doing what they are doing.

What's the solution, then? 

[lcfcbluearmy]

2 hours ago, Sol thewall Bamba said:

What have we become as a club, hoping for the relaxation of spending rules and the hope that we can "just pay a fine" because we've been so badly mismanged we're staring down the barrel of points deductions. 

 

It's a long way from what we fell in love with isn't it. 

Look at get the frustration with how the club is being managed but it's not like the loss is out of place almost every other club that has been trying to compete with the top 6 has made a similar or worse loss (except brighton)

[lcfcbluearmy]

2 hours ago, Foxmeister said:

So the rules, voted in by 2/3 of the clubs, were to protect the big 6 monopoly and the abolition of them, supported by 17 clubs, is to protect the big 6's monopoly.

 

Some of the conspiracy theories on here make flat earthers look rational.

 

My personal favourite being Daka's goal at Leeds being disallowed so the EFL could make more money out of a Leicester vs Southampton play-off final!

 

We are not being persecuted, relax.

I think when the rules were voted in the clubs believed that they would benefit everyone. Turns out they didn't and did only protect the "big six". 

 

That's why they are now talking about getting rid and I think the new proposal whilst not perfect looks a lot fairer than the current rules

[goose2010]

surely this rule change will have the Newcastle board rubbing there hands together - they basically have unlimited wealth and will just absorb any fine thrown their way. 

[sylofox]

Fingers crossed this happens. We won't have to sell our best players if we go up. Also if top has spare cash be able to buy one or two.

 

Even with a points deduction we have a chance of staying up to then build.

[sylofox]

45 minutes ago, LCFCCHRIS said:

No idea if this would work  but my ideal scenario would be:

 

A wage cap of  say 50k a week per player

On top of that, EPL mandated bonuses can be earnt (per win, or goal contributions for a striker, clean sheets etc)

 

This would mean that the "Big" clubs can still attract better players than "smaller" because they think they can earn more money in a team more likely to perform. It would also stop players downing tools as they need to perform to make more money.

 

Let's be honest, they are hardly going to starve on their base salary. Some of the wages earnt by shite players is ridiculous, looking at you Chelsea. 

 

Can you imagine the passion you'd see when some of these tw@ts realize they aren't collecting 100k if they lose. 

 

But how do you implement it?

 

Every club has players on 3 to 5yr contracts Chelsea have some on 8yr contracts.

 

None of them can be cancelled. Knowing you're a better player are you going to sign a 50k contract knowing others are on 200k.

 

Plus players will sign for clubs in other countries for a guaranteed wage than risk a hefty bonus if you win.

[MPH]

1 hour ago, honeybradger said:

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.

It’s worth noting that one of the reasons man city have been posting profits is ( allegedly ) there has been some dodgy  sponsorship dealings so don’t be fooled by the fact they are posting  a ‘profit’ I believe this part is all about to catch up with them

 

besides, one thing thing that has evaded man city so far is the champions league  and that’s the one thing their owners are after now.. if they can get away with it, they’ll spend even bigger to get that elusive trophy.

[MPH]

23 minutes ago, Adster said:

What's the solution, then? 

 

punish people for breaking the rules instead of changing them  again?

[Mickyblueeyes]

3 minutes ago, MPH said:

It’s worth noting that one of the reasons man city have been posting profits is ( allegedly ) there has been some dodgy  sponsorship dealings so don’t be fooled by the fact they are posting  a ‘profit’ I believe this part is all about to catch up with them

 

besides, one thing thing that has evaded man city so far is the champions league  and that’s the one thing their owners are after now.. if they can get away with it, they’ll spend even bigger to get that elusive trophy.

They already have. 

[MPH]

2 minutes ago, Mickyblueeyes said:

They already have. 

Yeah, how did I miss that one?

[TeamRocket]

3 hours ago, StanSP said:

Would this mean Man City avoid punishment? 

Was thinking the same thing 😆 

[Corky]

I agree with points deductions for breaches. We deserve it when it arrives.

 

But we now finding that tweaking, ripping up, changing things will either deliberately or unwittingly benefit the richer clubs. A proper wage control measure could help but would never be brought in.