6 point deduction - confirmed

[Gamble92]

With PSR, it's like the big clubs seen it as the opportunity to keep themselves established at the top because there's no way a team like Manchester United could mishandle a spending a Billion and finish below Brighton and Bournemouth right?

 

The fact those kind of clubs can compete by being smart leads to clubs like Newcastle coming out crying there's an unfair ceiling put on them when they could be out spending what they like. 

 

It does at least stop Man City and Newcastle running away with it, but it was absolutely agreed to to keep clubs like us from establishing ourselves in the top 6.

 

That's in no way to excuse the fact we absolutely blown our chance to establish ourselves as a Premier League club, in a time it was becoming almost a closed shop even for teams much worse than us. The fact we managed to fall so quickly is absolutely on Top and Rudkin and they can't use the "daring to dream" bullshit for their ineptitude.

[Stadt]

6 hours ago, Gamble92 said:

With PSR, it's like the big clubs seen it as the opportunity to keep themselves established at the top because there's no way a team like Manchester United could mishandle a spending a Billion and finish below Brighton and Bournemouth right?

 

The fact those kind of clubs can compete by being smart leads to clubs like Newcastle coming out crying there's an unfair ceiling put on them when they could be out spending what they like. 

 

It does at least stop Man City and Newcastle running away with it, but it was absolutely agreed to to keep clubs like us from establishing ourselves in the top 6.

 

That's in no way to excuse the fact we absolutely blown our chance to establish ourselves as a Premier League club, in a time it was becoming almost a closed shop even for teams much worse than us. The fact we managed to fall so quickly is absolutely on Top and Rudkin and they can't use the "daring to dream" bullshit for their ineptitude.

PSR is a barrier but you can’t level it at us when spending 116% of turnover on wages.

 

We were so frivolous we didn’t pay attention and it didn’t even do us any good, had we abided by the regs it might have actually helped us.

Edited 26 February by Stadt

[Gamble92]

16 minutes ago, Stadt said:

PSR is a barrier but you can’t level it us when we were spending 116% of our turnover on wages.

 

We were so frivolous we didn’t pay attention and it didn’t even do us any good, had we started abiding by the regs it might have actually helped us.

Yeah I think if anything Top has hid behind PSR as an excuse as the King Power profits ran out. 

 

We never really went for it with signings how they would lead you to believe. Things fell perfect for us for a few years with Newcastle and Villa going through the shit. But that's not to say we couldn't have capitalised big time.

 

Just a shame Top puts the success down to Rudkin and so many of our fans were brainwashed into following King Power instead of their club. 

[Stadt]

1 minute ago, Gamble92 said:

Yeah I think if anything Top has hid behind PSR as an excuse as the King Power profits ran out. 

 

We never really went for it with signings how they would lead you to believe. Things fell perfect for us for a few years with Newcastle and Villa going through the shit. But that's not to say we couldn't have capitalised big time.

 

Just a shame Top puts the success down to Rudkin and so many of our fans were brainwashed into following King Power instead of their club. 

We finished above Arsenal two years in a row relatively recently and now there's what, 42 places between us in the pyramid. Completely baffling some people think the regulations (that we demonstrably didn't stick to) are to blame for this!

[Gamble92]

5 minutes ago, Stadt said:

We finished above Arsenal two years in a row relatively recently and now there's what, 42 places between us in the pyramid. Completely baffling some people think the regulations (that we demonstrably didn't stick to) are to blame for this!

I think the King Power FC supporters make the link between recklessly spending over 100% of turnover on wages to ambition. 

 

We have only allowed all this because of the success that came before. You can't possibly run a club this badly and not have riots, unless you have created almost a cult following for the owner. 

 

Really hope I'm wrong but everything points towards us being a Premier League Champions to extinction Documentary.

[Stadt]

4 minutes ago, Gamble92 said:

I think the King Power FC supporters make the link between recklessly spending over 100% of turnover on wages to ambition. 

 

We have only allowed all this because of the success that came before. You can't possibly run a club this badly and not have riots, unless you have created almost a cult following for the owner. 

 

Really hope I'm wrong but everything points towards us being a Premier League Champions to extinction Documentary.

Wage spending correlates to success better than transfer spending, I often wonder if Rudkin read this once and completely misinterpreted it, so we whacked Soumare and vestergard on £180k per week as if the extra, discretionary £80k per was what would kick it on.

 

It was like this even under Vichai, the bonuses after new contacts after wining the title were understandable but it pegged new contracts and wage expectations unsustainably high. By the start of 17/18 we had something like 33 senior players on the books

[AKCJ]

Just seen Chelsea have reported pre-tax losses of over £400m.

 

Surely they get a points deduction too. A significant one at that.

[Jattdogg]

1 minute ago, AKCJ said:

Just seen Chelsea have reported pre-tax losses of over £400m.

 

Surely they get a points deduction too. A significant one at that.

Nonsense. They will sell their training ground to the owners other company for £401 million.

[pleatout]

14 hours ago, jammie82uk said:

This is the 11th of September episode where marti is live in the studio if anyone is interested 

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p0m299fs

31:50

About the summer transfer window

 

"We had some financial targets, if you want, restrictions as well."

[ClaphamFox]

45 minutes ago, AKCJ said:

Just seen Chelsea have reported pre-tax losses of over £400m.

 

Surely they get a points deduction too. A significant one at that.

The loss reported is for the 2024/25 season, but they apparently did not breach PSR for that period so presumably they're safe from a points deduction.

[smudger63]

4 hours ago, Les-TA-Jon said:

AI is largely nonsense - it provides plausible sounding answers to the questions you give it - it doesn't necessarily give accurate or even actual answers...

 

Your image itself contains obvious contradictions and inaccuracies. 

 

The 5th Feb Six-Point deduction outcome was for the period ending 23/24 (Enzo promotion season). So lots of the sentences it spat out make no sense. 

Although Talkshite did say last night, that all 20 Premier league clubs passed last seasons psr? 

[ClaphamFox]

3 minutes ago, smudger63 said:

Although Talkshite did say last night, that all 20 Premier league clubs passed last seasons psr? 

All current PL clubs. We’re not a PL club currently.

[kenny]

32 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

All current PL clubs. We’re not a PL club currently.

Or aren't we? It all depends which set of rules are being applied at which time in the most onerous way.

[Stevosevic]

2 hours ago, ClaphamFox said:

The loss reported is for the 2024/25 season, but they apparently did not breach PSR for that period so presumably they're safe from a points deduction.

Genuine question. How do Villa and Chelsea not breach PSR with these types of losses?

 

I thought only 120m over 3 years was allowed. 

[Les-TA-Jon]

Just now, Stevosevic said:

Genuine question. How do Villa and Chelsea not breach PSR with these types of losses?

 

I thought only 120m over 3 years was allowed. 

£105m over 3 years in the PL. But that's 'allowable' losses. There's all sorts of 'add-backs' a club have use to not count against it. Such as infrastructure, women's football, youth football, community projects. 

 

So you can have total losses of, say £300m, but if you have £200m of add-backs, you don't breach. 

[st albans fox]

4 minutes ago, Stevosevic said:

Genuine question. How do Villa and Chelsea not breach PSR with these types of losses?

 

I thought only 120m over 3 years was allowed. 

Villa sold their women’s team last season. 

if they keep qualifying for CL every second season then they may be able to keep the right side with some sales.  Tough to do.  Could see Rodgers sold end this season. 

[Terraloon]

6 minutes ago, Stevosevic said:

Genuine question. How do Villa and Chelsea not breach PSR with these types of losses?

 

I thought only 120m over 3 years was allowed. 

My guess would be that a lot of the sum reported is in respect of impairment or depreciation of tangible fixed assets along with other accounting tidying up.

PSR/FFP won’t as a matter of course come close to the same result as the accounting bottom line .

Without a lot more information it’s impossible to get close to assessing the impact but the suggestion is that they are relaxed about the impact 

[Corky]

Even if clubs find a way of complying or the debt is serviceable, losses of £400 million and debts of £1.3 billion are eye-watering numbers and not good for the sport.

[Wortho]

Chelsea sold their women’s team and hotels to themselves. The PL have since closed this loophole. Can’t the PL charge Chelsea retrospectively now the rules have been changed?

It seems that that is what the PL are doing to Leicester.

[st albans fox]

1 hour ago, Wortho said:

Chelsea sold their women’s team and hotels to themselves. The PL have since closed this loophole. Can’t the PL charge Chelsea retrospectively now the rules have been changed?

It seems that that is what the PL are doing to Leicester.

How are they charging us retrospectively?  We broke the rules. 

[Wortho]

4 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

How are they charging us retrospectively?  We broke the rules. 

I was under the impression that the PL had changed the rules, and that was the reason why we got charged? 
Perhaps I’m wrong 🤷‍♀️

[nnfox]

9 minutes ago, Wortho said:

I was under the impression that the PL had changed the rules, and that was the reason why we got charged? 
Perhaps I’m wrong 🤷‍♀️

I thought they charged us.  We argued the rules weren't fit for purpose so it went nowhere.  Then they changed the rules to stop a repeat of that situation and we were then actually dumb enough to break the rules again (and again?)

[nnfox]

8 hours ago, Stadt said:

PSR is a barrier but you can’t level it at us when spending 116% of turnover on wages.

 

We were so frivolous we didn’t pay attention and it didn’t even do us any good, had we abided by the regs it might have actually helped us.

PSR absolutely is a barrier.  A smaller club can, through smart spending, punch above their weight for a season or two or three, but the rules are such that it's unsustainable without an impossibly significant increase in revenue.

 

That's why the likes of Man Utd will always be able to spend their way out of trouble because they can, according to the rules, they can spend more than double or even treble on wages that we did even at our height, without even thinking about it.

 

Now, just because it's unsustainable to stay at the top for more than a few years, doesn't mean failure is guaranteed.  To experience a fall from grace such as ours, you need some pretty stupid spending decisions to be made.

 

PSR keeps the big clubs at the top of over the long term, smaller clubs just have to be wary about their ambition.  I think Crystal Palace might be the club outside of the big 6 and Everton who have been in the Premier League for the longest unbroken period (promoted in 12/13 I think).  Steady mid-table team with an FA Cup in the cabinet.  That's about as good as it gets.

[Stadt]

1 minute ago, nnfox said:

PSR absolutely is a barrier.  A smaller club can, through smart spending, punch above their weight for a season or two or three, but the rules are such that it's unsustainable without an impossibly significant increase in revenue.

 

That's why the likes of Man Utd will always be able to spend their way out of trouble because they can, according to the rules, they can spend more than double or even treble on wages that we did even at our height, without even thinking about it.

 

Now, just because it's unsustainable to stay at the top for more than a few years, doesn't mean failure is guaranteed.  To experience a fall from grace such as ours, you need some pretty stupid spending decisions to be made.

 

PSR keeps the big clubs at the top of over the long term, smaller clubs just have to be wary about their ambition.  I think Crystal Palace might be the club outside of the big 6 and Everton who have been in the Premier League for the longest unbroken period (promoted in 12/13 I think).  Steady mid-table team with an FA Cup in the cabinet.  That's about as good as it gets.

We could have spent more on transfers if we managed our wage bill well - we just didn’t. If we abided by PSR it probably have helped us.

 

We neglected to follow the rules and got worse for it. PSR might have ultimately led

to us falling into the middle of the pack but Top and Rudkin’s incompetence went beyond any impact of PSR

[kenny]

7 minutes ago, Stadt said:

We could have spent more on transfers if we managed our wage bill well - we just didn’t. If we abided by PSR it probably have helped us.

 

We neglected to follow the rules and got worse for it. PSR might have ultimately led

to us falling into the middle of the pack but Top and Rudkin’s incompetence went beyond any impact of PSR

If you finish 4th and have qualify for the champions league, you end up around £60-70m better off than finishing just above the relegation places. For us, that's a turnover swing of 30% that you find out across a 9 month season.

 

It is easy to argue that the club should have been budgeting not to do that each year, but they didn't. European competition makes clubs sign more players due to the number of games which is where we thought we were.

 

The club messed up in many ways, but the wage bill is a product of the success we had at the time.