PSR Ruling

[shen]

11 minutes ago, davieG said:

When Hull City won promotion back to the Premier League by beating Middlesbrough in the play-off final it came with guaranteed riches of around £200m.

Yet in a strange twist, winning that game means Hull must sell players before the end of the month to avoid a potential points deduction in the Premier League.

The Tigers have an overspend of around £6m on their profit and sustainability (PSR) calculation. Under English Football League rules, that could lead to a six-point penalty.

It is a breach caused by promotion bonuses included in the players' contracts.

Had Hull lost to Boro, they would not be in danger of exceeding the maximum losses of £39m for the past three seasons and there would be no points penalty in the Championship.

 

It's crazy

That is surreal. Stuff like this will only make budgets even murkier going forward.  

[st albans fox]

1 hour ago, davieG said:

When Hull City won promotion back to the Premier League by beating Middlesbrough in the play-off final it came with guaranteed riches of around £200m.

Yet in a strange twist, winning that game means Hull must sell players before the end of the month to avoid a potential points deduction in the Premier League.

The Tigers have an overspend of around £6m on their profit and sustainability (PSR) calculation. Under English Football League rules, that could lead to a six-point penalty.

It is a breach caused by promotion bonuses included in the players' contracts.

Had Hull lost to Boro, they would not be in danger of exceeding the maximum losses of £39m for the past three seasons and there would be no points penalty in the Championship.

 

It's crazy

Promotion bonus’ should be allowed to be moved into the following season’s accounts for psr calcs. Obviously they have to be included in the annual accounts for the period in which they were paid 

 

Edited Wednesday at 14:25 by st albans fox

[StanSP]

Imagine getting promoted and then immediately being faced with the threat of a points deduction. 

 

Just shows how broken football is. 

[urban.spaceman]

The Premier League and their pet clubs have broken the sport. 

[slymunn]

24 minutes ago, StanSP said:

Imagine getting promoted and then immediately being faced with the threat of a points deduction. 

 

Just shows how broken football is. 

Happen to Leicester when they had to sell KDH to balance the books.

[CornwallFox]

1 hour ago, davieG said:

When Hull City won promotion back to the Premier League by beating Middlesbrough in the play-off final it came with guaranteed riches of around £200m.

Yet in a strange twist, winning that game means Hull must sell players before the end of the month to avoid a potential points deduction in the Premier League.

The Tigers have an overspend of around £6m on their profit and sustainability (PSR) calculation. Under English Football League rules, that could lead to a six-point penalty.

It is a breach caused by promotion bonuses included in the players' contracts.

Had Hull lost to Boro, they would not be in danger of exceeding the maximum losses of £39m for the past three seasons and there would be no points penalty in the Championship.

 

It's crazy

PSR has turned into an absolute joke. 

Just scrap it. 

It's doing nothing but keeping the biggest clubs at the top - Chelsea find a new hotel to sell every year - while smashing ambition amongst the rest.

[Pita]

On 10/06/2026 at 20:16, Hitesh said:

We can sue ourselves

Won’t get much money we skint 

[Likely Fox]

Same with VAR... killing the game

[coolhandfox]

This will get untidy.

Edited Wednesday at 19:10 by coolhandfox

[Corky]

I thought the regulations were in place to stop sustained, reckless overspending? Not to penalise clubs for giving players a reward for, er, earning the club a lot more revenue in a one-off payment.

[Manwell Pablo]

On 10/06/2026 at 18:26, HankMarvin said:

“BURNLEY have been awarded £40million in damages from Everton in a landmark legal case which could open the way to massive future football compensation claims.

 

BURNLEY have been awarded £40million in damages from Everton in a landmark legal case – which could open the way to massive future football compensation claims.

The Clarets were given leave to sue Everton by a Prem tribunal in 2023 after the Toffees were initially deducted 10 points for PSR breaches in the 2021-22 season.

 

Under Prem rules, clubs could only take legal action over PSR breaches by rivals if it was approved by a tribunal and commission chairman David Phillips QC ruled that Burnley, Leeds, Leicester, Nottingham Forest and Southampton all had the right to make compensation claims.

 

It is understood only Burnley took up that option with the case proceeding to an official claim which was held under Prem rules in the autumn”

 

Fortunately for us we didn’t need that income 👀.

Is that door still ajar or have those clubs missed the boat?

 

Our problem is simple, Can you make a PSR claim when you are in breach of PSR yourself, highly doubtful.

 

We've never denied breaking PL PSR laws we've just said we are not in your league anymore so we fall out of your jurisdiction. That will come back to bite us if we try to go after anyone. 

[Foxmeister]

On 10/06/2026 at 18:26, HankMarvin said:

 

Is that door still ajar or have those clubs missed the boat?

You’ve got 6 years so it’s within the limitation period.

[Terraloon]

On 10/06/2026 at 20:09, st albans fox said:

I think there is a time limit on claims which means we wouldn’t be able to bring any claim against Man City or Chelsea 

burnley brought their claim against Everton promptly 

 

The time limit was 28 days after the award which would have been around mid to late December 2023.

 

From memory Leeds, Leicester , Southampton all stated they wanted to lodge a claim . Leeds as we know have settled, and Burnley have as we know been awarded an eye watering sum. I will come back to that ruling later.

 

Leeds were paid a couple of million based purely on PL merit payments. That matter was settled privately.

 

Leicester, Southampton and Forest as I said all indicated they would claim but from everything I read the suggestion is that these  initial claims were never taken further.

 

To Burnley.

 

Their claim to compensation was under PL rules heard by the original IC who if you remember were subsequently told that they hadn’t acted fully in accordance with the charges or indeed the rules. From my reading of the written reasons I would imagine that the quantum of the award will be significantly reduced. 
 

I wasn’t going to refer to the Chelsea or Man City matters however.

 

As most will recall there was a significant amount of anger about Chelsea’s settlement and a lot of sabre rattling from clubs about how they were going to do this or that. I have read the settlement agreement several times and my interposition that  it’s an incredibly well scripted piece of work. 
 

I genuinely believe that had Chelsea played a straight bat and put the responsibility on the PL as opposed to them , Chelsea, offering up possible explanations then the PL probably wouldn’t have been able to prove any of the matters. I would imagine that the discussions were held very much on the basis that Chelsea offered up  possible explanations without prejudice.
 

In other words if Chelsea hadn’t liked the terms of the settlement then it would have had to go to a full hearing and again back to that settlement agreement the wording suggests that wasn’t an option that the PL was sue about 
 

The settlement agreement went out of its way to answer the question about potential PSR breeches and that wasn’t done purely to justify the outcome but my guess would be that Chelsea lawyers wanted the IC panel who signed off the agreement( this panel would hear any subsequent claims) to be tied to that view if any club within that 28 day period lodged a claim that there weren’t PSR questions .
 

That agreement was signed off in March . I haven’t heard about any claims so my guess is that the view would be no point . 

 

As for Man City . I am torn as to what the final outcome will be.

 

Some of the charges such as failure to co operate, the Mancinis contract and image rights payments won’t have been the reason for the delay so surely the focus and delay revolves  around disguised equity and as a consequence of that notion the charges around failure to supply correct financial information would either follow or be dismissed as a consequence of charges not being proven. I know that’s a simplistic view .

 

As I say I am torn . Man City are adamant that they have irrefutable evidence. Well if that were the case the IC would have reached that conclusion months ago. Yet here we are.

 

 

Edited 16 hours ago by Terraloon

[FrankieADZ]

I see Borson is kicking the hornets nest again

saying "leeds could claim big"

yet we went down and everton stayed up...

if that be the case leicester should sue everton as well, i think most clubs could have a right to sue Man City and Chelsea too for the crap theyve pulled with the 115+ charges and the agents stuff chelsea did too.

I cant rememeber what hes said in regards Man City and Chelsea's stuff but i bet it isnt as harsh

these people are more than willing to kick the smaller teams but when it comes to the bigger ones, oh no....

Edited 15 hours ago by FrankieADZ