That’s not right. If Newcastle have a turnover of £250M and are not in Europe, they can spend £187.5M (85% of turnover). If they’re in Europe it’s reduced to 70% of turnover as that turnover is expected to rise, due to being in Europe.As I understand it, and someone will possibly have more knowledge on this, as an example a team like say Newcastle who’s turnover was about 250m it helps them as if the TV revenues of the bottom club is 100m and it’s x 5 that means potentially Newcastle have up to 250m whereby sale of players would be an advantage.
In our case our turnover is 700m plus but we’re restricted to 500m so any player profits are irrelevant.
Chelsea will need to sell to balance this years PSR rules, the changes won’t affect the end of season sales.
Maguire’s very good…he’s probably my second favourite expert !You had him on the run @projectriver :-).
He didn’t have answers to your points and could only try shouting over you. Kieran didn’t have a point to prove re City so he’s a safer option.
That’s not right. If Newcastle have a turnover of £250M and are not in Europe, they can spend £187.5M (85% of turnover). If they’re in Europe it’s reduced to 70% of turnover as that turnover is expected to rise, due to being in Europe.
Not sure what happens if you’re in Europe one season, out the next, back in and back out……….
Disagree. The academy will be needed more to produce player for our team as our budget will be slightly less when wages and amortisation agents fee all added up.Some of the biggest losers here will be Academies like ours, there’s no point trying to develop young players, the majority of them who won’t make it at top flight level. The payback for investment in Academies is future sales of a few players to lower league clubs to offset the cost of developing all the players within the set up.
There’s plenty who don’t make it but they have at least been given a chance to fulfil their dreams with fantastic coaching and education.
These new rules will have the effect of driving down transfer fees at all levels, probably making Academies to potentially run at a loss. However if a player like Cole Palmer is sold for big money it’ll still add to revenue but that money will not be able to be reinvested on an alternative player.
As a consequence of this bullshit player fees will plummet in the next few seasons, will drive down the quality of the PL and Europes elite will benefit, they must be pissing their sides watching the most successful domestic league in the world tearing itself apart.
It’s on a par with Gerald Ratner’s famous off the cuff comment:
“How can Ratner’s sell jewellery so cheap?”
Gerald
“Because it’s all crap”
Ratners didn’t last long after that.
So you think a 200m hole in spending ability is business as usual?Disagree. The academy will be needed more to produce player for our team as our budget will be slightly less when wages and amortisation agents fee all added up.
if we sell any academy players there will be a profit for the sheikh on any income rather than it ploughed back into the budget for signing new players.
Though you would hope that ticket prices would stabilise if the top end of income doesn’t matter too much. Having slightly cheaper admission might help get more noisy supportive working class fans in the ground. Not the worse thing.
Even though I don’t like the anchoring idea, city still have plenty of competitive advantages, these measures are just a reducer between the top club and the bottom ones.
interesting bit will be the Anchoring ratio 4.5 or less would be bad 5 plus and really it’s business as usual for us as far as I can see
Who the fuck are 'pool'If 14 voted for it that must include arsenal and pool musn't it
Btw, 85% of 250 is 212.50 :-)That’s not right. If Newcastle have a turnover of £250M and are not in Europe, they can spend £187.5M (85% of turnover). If they’re in Europe it’s reduced to 70% of turnover as that turnover is expected to rise, due to being in Europe.
Not sure what happens if you’re in Europe one season, out the next, back in and back out……….
I see your point - a two-tiered spending restriction, ie domestic and European, is fraught with difficulties. What happens if a team qualifies for Europe for the first time, has to pay contractual bonuses as a result, then misses out on Europe the following campaign? How can the club be expected to monitor their spend to turnover ratio in a two-tier system when so much is uncertain in football?It would be best if the PL had no restrictions whatsoever.
The clubs at the top would he necessarily restricted by UEFA's regulations which would ultimately act as an anchor in preventing absurdity that might theoretically be brought about by, say, PIF/ Newcastle spending.
The clubs not in Europe would then have a slightly better chance at catching up but would ultimately would be tempered by UEFA's regulations.