PSR RULE CHANGE

[Arkie Bennett]

3 hours ago, Chelmofox said:

Interestingly all points deductions so far have been manufactured to not impact relegation. Wonder if we will end up getting something paltry like 2 points.

They'd need to give us something like 20 points as an addition to not impact relegation.

[Taz_The_Fox]

Get rid, its not stopped the big clubs from spending crazy amounts anyway.

[UniFox21]

It's not really worked has it? 

It's stopped big teams spending as much.

 

But it's also taken 9/10 years since it was voted in for there to be any sense of a side failing it. 

All of a sudden every side is panicking and the rules are now conveniently changing to remove point deductions.

[Taz_The_Fox]

Makes you wonder if they are expecting a whole bunch of teams to fail it next year and that's why they're changing it

[adam]

It needs to be targeted at players wages. These wages are completely ruining clubs. Massive TV deals and clubs can't make any money because their wage bills are out of control.

Footballers need a reality check.

[Chelmofox]

5 minutes ago, Taz_The_Fox said:

Makes you wonder if they are expecting a whole bunch of teams to fail it next year and that's why they're changing it

Well remember, we had the transfer window with the highest net spend ever. Fall out of wages from that is coming.....

[coolhandfox]

The issue with the current PSR rules is the 3-year accounting window in my opinion.

 

A football club's major costs are transfer fees and wages, both of which relate to a player's contract. Most players are signed on a contract of 3, 4 or 5 years.  

 

If things turn for the worse, you lose revenue because it is based on sporting achievement; now, you are in trouble as you don't have the revenue to balance the books. 

 

You have to cut your biggest costs, wages, and the amortisation value of transfer fees, so you have to move players on.

 

But guess what? No one wants them because they have been sh*t, but you can't sell them cheaply as you have to balance the debt on the books against the selling price, so you are stuck with players you now can't afford. 

 

So you must wait until they run down a 3-year + contract or get cheap enough to buy.  

 

With a 3-year PSR reporting window, you don't have the time to adjust and get your house in order. Due to player contract lengths, you can't change your cost base quickly enough to return to tolerance.

 

Your sporting achievement affecting your revenue can change in a 12-month window very quickly; changing your costs is a much slower process. 

 

Make the maximum contract length five years and increase the PSR window to 7-year cycles. This will give the clubs the time to adjust to the pressure of changing sporting achievements and a reduction in revenue.

 

To protect clubs, the owner has to sign a bond to cover any losses incurred in any season they make a loss.  

Edited 4 April by coolhandfox

[MPH]

2 minutes ago, coolhandfox said:

The issue with the current PSR rules is the 3-year accounting window in my opinion.

 

A football club's major costs are transfer fees and wages, both of which relate to a player's contract. Most players are signed on a contract of 3, 4 or 5 years.  

 

If things turn for the worse, you lose revenue because it is based on sporting achievement; now, you are in trouble as you don't have the revenue to balance the books. 

 

You have to cut your biggest costs, wages, and the amortisation value of transfer fees, so you have to move players on.

 

But guess what? No one wants them because they have been sh*t, but you can't sell them cheaply as you have to balance the debt on the books against the selling price, so you are stuck with players you now can't afford. 

 

So you must wait until they run down a 3-year + contract or get cheap enough to buy.  

 

With a 3-year PSR reporting window, you don't have the time to adjust and get your house in order. Due to player contract lengths, you can't change your cost quickly enough to get back into tolerance.

 

Make the maximum contract length 5 years and increase the PSR window to 7-year cycles. This will give the clubs the time to adjust to the pressure of changing sporting achievements and a reduction in revenue.

 

To protect clubs, the owner has to sign a bond to cover any losses incurred in any season they make a loss.  

 

I think that’s too long at least with how it is now there’s a sense of accountability right now for mistakes you have done recently..

 

 

 

the reality is no matter which way round you do it, teams will exploit it for their own benefit..

[Mr Weller 2]

4 hours ago, adam said:

So basically. Everyone can spend what they want but if you go over you pay a bit of tax into a pot.

Sounds decent that for the big 6.

The existing system is better for the top 6 because they will never be punished under it. At least with this they might be

[Grebfromgrebland]

The caps should not be linked to income but actual amounts.

 

Then we'll have a competitive league. It will never happen though.

[cruzFOX]

4 minutes ago, coolhandfox said:

The issue with the current PSR rules is the 3-year accounting window in my opinion.

 

A football club's major costs are transfer fees and wages, both of which relate to a player's contract. Most players are signed on a contract of 3, 4 or 5 years.  

 

If things turn for the worse, you lose revenue because it is based on sporting achievement; now, you are in trouble as you don't have the revenue to balance the books. 

 

You have to cut your biggest costs, wages, and the amortisation value of transfer fees, so you have to move players on.

 

But guess what? No one wants them because they have been sh*t, but you can't sell them cheaply as you have to balance the debt on the books against the selling price, so you are stuck with players you now can't afford. 

 

So you must wait until they run down a 3-year + contract or get cheap enough to buy.  

 

With a 3-year PSR reporting window, you don't have the time to adjust and get your house in order. Due to player contract lengths, you can't change your cost base quickly enough to return to tolerance.

 

Make the maximum contract length five years and increase the PSR window to 7-year cycles. This will give the clubs the time to adjust to the pressure of changing sporting achievements and a reduction in revenue.

 

To protect clubs, the owner has to sign a bond to cover any losses incurred in any season they make a loss.  

I think you’ve nailed it my friend!

best summary of the issues at hand and how to solve it. 👍🏾

[Clever Fox]

4 hours ago, TheGoldenGod said:

Our sentence will be resolved way before Man City's so there's a flaw in your logic there! How quickly this gets voted in (if at all) will determine if we get punished for 23/24 etc. The current charge will stay regardless I imagine.

Not if it's going to Court it wont be settled before Man City. 

 

It's a disgrace that they've draged it out this long.That in itself is grounds for a reasonable claim by Everton and Forest.

 

The sooner we get an Administrator appointed by the Government the better. Otherwise this crap will continue.

 

[SouthStandUpperTier]

9 minutes ago, UniFox21 said:

But it's also taken 9/10 years since it was voted in for there to be any sense of a side failing it. 

Because the £105m/3yr rule hasn't budged since its inception. Just think how much transfer fees and player wages have increased in those 11 years while the PSR loss limit has remained exactly the same.

[Mr Weller 2]

2 hours ago, ClaphamFox said:

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. 

Except they wouldn’t play in the PL at all

[cruzFOX]

At the risk of sounding like a conspiracy theorist I wonder if all this rule/punishment drama is part of the great Lee master plan to weed out the clubs that simply cannot afford to compete with big time Charlie’s. Inevitably turning the premier league into a bonafide English super league. The best of the rest get squeezed into a premier championship league and the current championship falling below. It sure feels like it’s going that way when you look at the league standings.

[coolhandfox]

4 minutes ago, MPH said:

I think that’s too long at least with how it is now there’s a sense of accountability right now for mistakes you have done recently..

the reality is no matter which way round you do it, teams will exploit it for their own benefit..

I'd rather give people accountability to correct their mistakes than punish them. 

 

Who is punished by point deductions, a billionaire living on the other side of the world or a simple supporter who loves their team? 

[Clever Fox]

2 hours ago, ClaphamFox said:

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. 

I remember as a young boy an International Winger asking Fans for a Cigarette during games back then. He'd have a few  puffs and say o here ,hold that,

when the Ball was coming his way.

 

How times have changed.

Edited 4 April by Clever Fox

[Foxmeister]

I'm expecting Brighton to win the league next season and an accountant to win PFA Player of the Year.

[Buzzell]

4 hours ago, SouthStandUpperTier said:

Don't think we'll be let off that easily. We'll still get whacked for breaking the rules as they were at the time.

Imagine Forest and Everton fans if we did get let off  

[Pliskin]

I say **** it off, let everyone go ****ing mental, last club standing wins. 

[Clever Fox]

25 minutes ago, coolhandfox said:

The issue with the current PSR rules is the 3-year accounting window in my opinion.

 

A football club's major costs are transfer fees and wages, both of which relate to a player's contract. Most players are signed on a contract of 3, 4 or 5 years.  

 

If things turn for the worse, you lose revenue because it is based on sporting achievement; now, you are in trouble as you don't have the revenue to balance the books. 

 

You have to cut your biggest costs, wages, and the amortisation value of transfer fees, so you have to move players on.

 

But guess what? No one wants them because they have been sh*t, but you can't sell them cheaply as you have to balance the debt on the books against the selling price, so you are stuck with players you now can't afford. 

 

So you must wait until they run down a 3-year + contract or get cheap enough to buy.  

 

With a 3-year PSR reporting window, you don't have the time to adjust and get your house in order. Due to player contract lengths, you can't change your cost base quickly enough to return to tolerance.

 

Your sporting achievement affecting your revenue can change in a 12-month window very quickly; changing your costs is a much slower process. 

 

Make the maximum contract length five years and increase the PSR window to 7-year cycles. This will give the clubs the time to adjust to the pressure of changing sporting achievements and a reduction in revenue.

 

To protect clubs, the owner has to sign a bond to cover any losses incurred in any season they make a loss.  

A few very good suggestions which would work better.

 

Using a 3 year from 5 year period would allow clubs the space to sort out their finances for the reasons you say.

 

Currently it doesn't seem right that you have to sell your best players to try and comply with rules.

 

There needs to be some allowance for Clubs competing in Europe also, As they need bigger sqauds to try and compete.

 

The Bond seems to make lots of sense which should be Penal on the Owners rather than the Clubs. The Bigger the Club the Bigger the Bond.

[LCFCCHRIS]

1 hour ago, sylofox said:

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.

Contract extensions can only be done on these hypothetical rules. If a player is on more than the cap, he doesn’t get the mandated bonuses per goal. Players will have to suck it up. I’d take a reduction in the PL quality of player if it meant this could happen. But ideally it would be a worldwide thing all in line (obviously would never happen though)

[st albans fox]

It’s interesting - whatever rules the PL come up with, unless uefa change their ffp rules then you can only spend 70% of your turn over 

 

so a club could decide to go all in to win the PL and not be bothered about the champions league because uefa wouldn’t  allow them to enter  …. (Newcastle ? ) 

[Chelmofox]

25 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

It’s interesting - whatever rules the PL come up with, unless uefa change their ffp rules then you can only spend 70% of your turn over 

 

so a club could decide to go all in to win the PL and not be bothered about the champions league because uefa wouldn’t  allow them to enter  …. (Newcastle ? ) 

If only the top clubs could enter a new european league. That would be 'super', wouldn't it? (see what i did there!)

Edited 4 April by Chelmofox

[MPH]

1 hour ago, coolhandfox said:

I'd rather give people accountability to correct their mistakes than punish them. 

 

Who is punished by point deductions, a billionaire living on the other side of the world or a simple supporter who loves their team? 

 

correct their ‘mistakes’? 

 

I think this is a generous assessment of what’s been going on