I actually understand somewhat limiting spending so clubs don't go bust, but the fact we can spend less than Southampton and Leicester, even tho we'll likely get same amount of TV money in the coming season - just seems odd, what does playing forest green 3 years ago have todo with the coming League season?
And for the record owners are on record saying they limited spending to complie with rules the championship, league one.
>I actually understand somewhat limiting spending so clubs don't go bust
Sorry but I think that's a false narrative. Or maybe not false narrative, but something that's pitched by the league and not believable.
Man Utd are pretty much free to spend what they want, and their stadium is a water park, at the same time they are a billion in debt. Villa got zero debt and can't spend.
Yeah yeah I know revenue bla bla, but that's the jist of it. It's not about protecting any club. It's about creating glass ceilings while pretending it's some sort of moral agenda about the financial well being of clubs. It's horseshit.
I think the intention around some of the PSR rules was about protecting clubs but it’s been very poorly thought out.
Financial rules very much came to the fore in the wake of Leeds’ collapse and as a response to Abramovich at Chelsea.
The argument that it’s about glass ceilings makes no sense when the rest of the PL could easily outvote the big 6 or whatever.
This pretence that the upper reaches of the league is some closed shop just isn’t true though. Haven’t Villa and Newcastle both finished top 4? Haven’t West Ham and Brighton and Palace given ‘bigger’ teams a bloody nose?
I get that PSR rules are frustrating but this isn’t 2007 or whatever when the top 4 didn’t change season by season. Man Utd themselves haven’t only finished top in back to back seasons once since Fergie retired.
It’s no surprise to me that some teams vote with the bigger teams because they don’t want the likes of Villa and Newcastle to get away from them. If everyone can spend what they like then eventually teams get left behind.
>Haven’t Villa and Newcastle both finished top 4?
It's not about that though. It's about what happens once you do. Everything is designed so the status quo is maintained. Domestically and abroad the usual suspects are favoured financially.
It's a reason why Newcastle finished in the CL and fell out of it next season. It's a reason why we won't finish in the CL spots this year. It's a reason why it's the same teams over and over and over that win anything. It's not because they have figured something out the rest of us haven't. It's because it's a rigged league. It's not a competition of even terms. It's quite literally designed so status quo will remain even if the odd team outside the sky6 has a good season.
Previously the glass ceiling between the CL money and the rest of the clubs went unchecked. Then suddenly there was a higher influx of money from new owners and the top4 turned into the sky6. And now we're left with this pile of shite of a system.
I honestly wonder what the fans of the sky6 would think of this league if the roles were reversed. I can't for a second imagine you would be saying the same things.
The fact that the league thinks selling hotels is fine, but go ape shit about Everton and Villa claiming values of £9-10 million for Dobbin and Tim says it all. They are not mad about the values of either the hotel or the players. They are just pissed they haven't been able to lock down the sky6 brand of the league.
I think you forget the influence the sky6 had in the PL up to the super league fiasco. Votes aren't as easy as it's made out to be, or wasn't. IIRC the revision of the FFP that was accepted by the league in 2014 was met with no votes by 40% of the league. Everything that's happened after that is pretty irrelevant in my book.
The initial vote was marginally approved due to the promises of a wage cap that would have favoured teams with less financial muscle. At least that's my remembrance of it. Sure it's easy enough to Google.
The usual suspects, including your team man utd, all voted in favour cause they knew it would create a glass ceiling.
That's the question and ultimately not our job. I'm sure we could come up with a better system in a week, but just not up to us.
But whatever the system it will be, the framework has to create and open up to a fair competition. Until then they should just give clubs free reigns to invest as they see fit.
The rules were updated, and the 2023/24 season one now says:
> The sum set out in Rule E.53 shall be reduced by £22m for each Season covered by T-1 and T-2 in which the Club was in membership of The Football League.
So League One is the same as the Championship.
PSR is such a horrible system.
Ipswich should just invest what they want and see where they end up. The odds are that the points won from the added investment will be worth more than whatever they deduct before the whole system collapses anyway.
Why is the level of loss permitted so much lower if you’ve been in a division where it’s so much harder to make money? That seems utterly nonsensical to me, especially if the club hasn’t benefited from any parachute payments. Obviously I’m for trying to balance the books whatever division the clubs are in, but this just seems to be exacerbating the gap between divisions and making it harder for newly promoted sides to recruit.
*BuT yOu VoTeD fOr ThE RuLeS* - big six everytime you mention how unfair to promoted teams the rules are.
We didn’t even vote for them. *BuT yOu KnEw ThE RuLeS*
I had a scan through Chelsea’s website earlier, as I keep seeing fabrizio Romano post about their new signings or players they are after. They have at least 65 players across their first team and u21 squad. 65! Proper squad limits and caps on outgoing loans make more sense than PSR rules.
I say proper squad limits because I think you can name 25 in a squad for the season, but u21 players don’t have to be listed so can name as many as you like.
Yeah, that's why Chelsea have gotten away with it. They've tried to invest in youth and hope they come good.
Probably why they have tried shipping so many players our way.
We will just stick with CHO thanks (2 players for Murillo swap deal no thanks)
Man city, meanwhile, can spend the equivalent of a brand new aircraft carrier under the table, and the FA will apologize to them for making them lie about it.
I would assume for the same reason rich people receive bigger credit limits on their credit cards. If you’re not bringing in big money they don’t want you taking out big loans. None of this is about sport integrity it’s about accounting.
If I'm not mistaken, League One (and Two) have to set out a Financial Plan at the start of the season to cover all funding plans, the latter must also provide proof of said funding.
I could be wrong, fairly sure Gary Neville covered it on The Overlap at some point, which makes sense given his Salford ownership, he'd probably know the ins and outs
The problem is leage one and two have spending caps not PSR loss limits theirs very little I could find online about it as well. I saw some suggestions that the championship could treat it as a standard 13 mil loss year but who knows if the Prem would.
Worst case scenario £48 mil (one prem and one champ year), best case £61 mil (if they count leage one the same as championship).
Theirs definitely very little written on the topic.
As an Ipswich fan I wouldn’t be too worried about because psr, our expenditure was so low last season we have over 100m to spend before we even make any loss we’d have to go Forrest level crazy to break psr rules this year.
I actually think the psr rules will benefit us as I don’t think they’re going to affect how much we spend at all.
League 1 has SCMP, salary cost management protocol which limits player expenditures to a percentage of revenue. Not sure they have allowable losses, no idea how it plays now that your in the Prem (assuming 0 for the league 1 season, 15 million for the champo season and 35 million for this season, allowing a 50 million loss for the 3 years ending next June).
The good news for you is you’ll certainly be able to outspend us as we have a massive loss on the books from 22/23. We’ll be tight on the buys without more sales. Saints on the other hand have quite a bit of room to buy with their sales last year
I think PSR for L1 is REALLY low.
It's £13m losses for the season in the championship, which is half what the PL get.
I don't know specifically what it is in league one; last club to make successive promotions was Southampton I think but that may be been pre FFP
Half again would be a good guess but it wouldn't surprise me if it was something like 5m
The fact that a team is punished for being promoted is also just another level of bullshit. PSR bollocks got glass ceilings everywhere.
I actually understand somewhat limiting spending so clubs don't go bust, but the fact we can spend less than Southampton and Leicester, even tho we'll likely get same amount of TV money in the coming season - just seems odd, what does playing forest green 3 years ago have todo with the coming League season? And for the record owners are on record saying they limited spending to complie with rules the championship, league one.
>I actually understand somewhat limiting spending so clubs don't go bust Sorry but I think that's a false narrative. Or maybe not false narrative, but something that's pitched by the league and not believable. Man Utd are pretty much free to spend what they want, and their stadium is a water park, at the same time they are a billion in debt. Villa got zero debt and can't spend. Yeah yeah I know revenue bla bla, but that's the jist of it. It's not about protecting any club. It's about creating glass ceilings while pretending it's some sort of moral agenda about the financial well being of clubs. It's horseshit.
I think the intention around some of the PSR rules was about protecting clubs but it’s been very poorly thought out. Financial rules very much came to the fore in the wake of Leeds’ collapse and as a response to Abramovich at Chelsea. The argument that it’s about glass ceilings makes no sense when the rest of the PL could easily outvote the big 6 or whatever.
Big six invader thinks they know best! You honestly believe PL is a democracy….
This pretence that the upper reaches of the league is some closed shop just isn’t true though. Haven’t Villa and Newcastle both finished top 4? Haven’t West Ham and Brighton and Palace given ‘bigger’ teams a bloody nose? I get that PSR rules are frustrating but this isn’t 2007 or whatever when the top 4 didn’t change season by season. Man Utd themselves haven’t only finished top in back to back seasons once since Fergie retired. It’s no surprise to me that some teams vote with the bigger teams because they don’t want the likes of Villa and Newcastle to get away from them. If everyone can spend what they like then eventually teams get left behind.
>Haven’t Villa and Newcastle both finished top 4? It's not about that though. It's about what happens once you do. Everything is designed so the status quo is maintained. Domestically and abroad the usual suspects are favoured financially. It's a reason why Newcastle finished in the CL and fell out of it next season. It's a reason why we won't finish in the CL spots this year. It's a reason why it's the same teams over and over and over that win anything. It's not because they have figured something out the rest of us haven't. It's because it's a rigged league. It's not a competition of even terms. It's quite literally designed so status quo will remain even if the odd team outside the sky6 has a good season. Previously the glass ceiling between the CL money and the rest of the clubs went unchecked. Then suddenly there was a higher influx of money from new owners and the top4 turned into the sky6. And now we're left with this pile of shite of a system. I honestly wonder what the fans of the sky6 would think of this league if the roles were reversed. I can't for a second imagine you would be saying the same things. The fact that the league thinks selling hotels is fine, but go ape shit about Everton and Villa claiming values of £9-10 million for Dobbin and Tim says it all. They are not mad about the values of either the hotel or the players. They are just pissed they haven't been able to lock down the sky6 brand of the league.
I think you forget the influence the sky6 had in the PL up to the super league fiasco. Votes aren't as easy as it's made out to be, or wasn't. IIRC the revision of the FFP that was accepted by the league in 2014 was met with no votes by 40% of the league. Everything that's happened after that is pretty irrelevant in my book. The initial vote was marginally approved due to the promises of a wage cap that would have favoured teams with less financial muscle. At least that's my remembrance of it. Sure it's easy enough to Google. The usual suspects, including your team man utd, all voted in favour cause they knew it would create a glass ceiling.
What is the alternative
That's the question and ultimately not our job. I'm sure we could come up with a better system in a week, but just not up to us. But whatever the system it will be, the framework has to create and open up to a fair competition. Until then they should just give clubs free reigns to invest as they see fit.
It’s not punished for being promoted. What’s dogshit is your understanding of the rules
The rules were updated, and the 2023/24 season one now says: > The sum set out in Rule E.53 shall be reduced by £22m for each Season covered by T-1 and T-2 in which the Club was in membership of The Football League. So League One is the same as the Championship.
PSR is such a horrible system. Ipswich should just invest what they want and see where they end up. The odds are that the points won from the added investment will be worth more than whatever they deduct before the whole system collapses anyway.
When did this “new” system come into place ?
It doesn’t say championship it says outside of the PL, or EFL. League one is the same as the championship for the purposes of this.
Why is the level of loss permitted so much lower if you’ve been in a division where it’s so much harder to make money? That seems utterly nonsensical to me, especially if the club hasn’t benefited from any parachute payments. Obviously I’m for trying to balance the books whatever division the clubs are in, but this just seems to be exacerbating the gap between divisions and making it harder for newly promoted sides to recruit.
*BuT yOu VoTeD fOr ThE RuLeS* - big six everytime you mention how unfair to promoted teams the rules are. We didn’t even vote for them. *BuT yOu KnEw ThE RuLeS*
This. Always this. Imagine actually thinking ‘having a go’ is a bad thing. Big Six fans, yuk!
I had a scan through Chelsea’s website earlier, as I keep seeing fabrizio Romano post about their new signings or players they are after. They have at least 65 players across their first team and u21 squad. 65! Proper squad limits and caps on outgoing loans make more sense than PSR rules. I say proper squad limits because I think you can name 25 in a squad for the season, but u21 players don’t have to be listed so can name as many as you like.
Yeah, that's why Chelsea have gotten away with it. They've tried to invest in youth and hope they come good. Probably why they have tried shipping so many players our way. We will just stick with CHO thanks (2 players for Murillo swap deal no thanks)
Man city, meanwhile, can spend the equivalent of a brand new aircraft carrier under the table, and the FA will apologize to them for making them lie about it.
I would assume for the same reason rich people receive bigger credit limits on their credit cards. If you’re not bringing in big money they don’t want you taking out big loans. None of this is about sport integrity it’s about accounting.
If I'm not mistaken, League One (and Two) have to set out a Financial Plan at the start of the season to cover all funding plans, the latter must also provide proof of said funding. I could be wrong, fairly sure Gary Neville covered it on The Overlap at some point, which makes sense given his Salford ownership, he'd probably know the ins and outs
The problem is leage one and two have spending caps not PSR loss limits theirs very little I could find online about it as well. I saw some suggestions that the championship could treat it as a standard 13 mil loss year but who knows if the Prem would. Worst case scenario £48 mil (one prem and one champ year), best case £61 mil (if they count leage one the same as championship). Theirs definitely very little written on the topic.
As an Ipswich fan I wouldn’t be too worried about because psr, our expenditure was so low last season we have over 100m to spend before we even make any loss we’d have to go Forrest level crazy to break psr rules this year. I actually think the psr rules will benefit us as I don’t think they’re going to affect how much we spend at all.
League 1 has SCMP, salary cost management protocol which limits player expenditures to a percentage of revenue. Not sure they have allowable losses, no idea how it plays now that your in the Prem (assuming 0 for the league 1 season, 15 million for the champo season and 35 million for this season, allowing a 50 million loss for the 3 years ending next June). The good news for you is you’ll certainly be able to outspend us as we have a massive loss on the books from 22/23. We’ll be tight on the buys without more sales. Saints on the other hand have quite a bit of room to buy with their sales last year
I think PSR for L1 is REALLY low. It's £13m losses for the season in the championship, which is half what the PL get. I don't know specifically what it is in league one; last club to make successive promotions was Southampton I think but that may be been pre FFP Half again would be a good guess but it wouldn't surprise me if it was something like 5m
Hope they get deducted a bajillion points