Install the app
How to install the app on iOS

Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.

Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.

6 + 2 Point Deductions

Only goes to highlight the arbitrariness of the value mentioned for PSR and how laughable sustainability is to whom these rules apply.
It's alright saying that, but if a club is relegated £105 million is an awful lot to try and recover. If it was £200 million then the season after relegation if a club wasn't promoted they would go bankrupt.
 
Personally I would say PSR rules mean a club can't lose any money. That would protect the clubs for the fans, and bring down the silly wages as clubs wouldn't be able to pay them.
 
Hopefully clubs will now start looking at players wages and cut the fat there.

It does highlight though the need to bring through players from the academy and younger players with lower wages than say a star player looking for a last huge pay day or players asking for ridiculously high salaries.

Where does this leave us for any money in the kitty? Or don't we have a pot to urinate in?
 
Only goes to highlight the arbitrariness of the value mentioned for PSR and how laughable sustainability is to whom these rules apply.
...and that word 'arbitrary' can also be used for criticising them in their choice of penalty. A nice round figure. How did they come to it? Why not 3 or 7 or 6.5 or 8.379 approximately? They have not even attempted to explain the reasoning behind this. It's already been established that 10 points is ridiculous when weighted against Portsmouth's penalty for far worse offending. What a joke. People full of their own self-importance. I really hope they are forced to backtrack and get humiliated over this.
 
Personally I would say PSR rules mean a club can't lose any money. That would protect the clubs for the fans, and bring down the silly wages as clubs wouldn't be able to pay them.

Certain clubs wouldn't be able to pay them, some of those that already do, will always be able to pay them. Its already like that in some form anyway. The wages of Salah, KdB, Haaland are not attainable by 14 of the 20 clubs.

That's why I think there should be a number, a value stated that you can spend a year. £100m a year, maximum on incoming players. That applies whether you make £101m or £800m. It also isn't reduced by outgoings. If you sell a.player for £60m, them you can still only buy £100m of players that year.

Imo, that would make clubs more sustainable and puts everybody on an even keel regardless of starting point.

Also, an independent in every contractual conversation to ensure no dodgy deals and huge sporting sanctions for tapping up or shady monetary deals.
 

Hopefully clubs will now start looking at players wages and cut the fat there.

It does highlight though the need to bring through players from the academy and younger players with lower wages than say a star player looking for a last huge pay day or players asking for ridiculously high salaries.

Where does this leave us for any money in the kitty? Or don't we have a pot to urinate in?

The clubs that have driven the ridiculous wage structure don't have to trim the fat. It's always those outside of a certain group that are left to deal with it. The whole division is past its tipping point now. Greed has been baked into the business model where nothing is a step too far, so long as you are part of the cabal.
 
Certain clubs wouldn't be able to pay them, some of those that already do, will always be able to pay them. Its already like that in some form anyway. The wages of Salah, KdB, Haaland are not attainable by 14 of the 20 clubs.

That's why I think there should be a number, a value stated that you can spend a year. £100m a year, maximum on incoming players. That applies whether you make £101m or £800m. It also isn't reduced by outgoings. If you sell a.player for £60m, them you can still only buy £100m of players that year.

Imo, that would make clubs more sustainable and puts everybody on an even keel regardless of starting point.

Also, an independent in every contractual conversation to ensure no dodgy deals and huge sporting sanctions for tapping up or shady monetary deals.
This won’t stand for the reason that football is a global sport and the top PL teams are competing for players not just against each other, but against all the other teams in the world.

So they will say that they won’t be able to compete on the global stage. And they will be right.

Which is why it will never happen.
 
Certain clubs wouldn't be able to pay them, some of those that already do, will always be able to pay them. Its already like that in some form anyway. The wages of Salah, KdB, Haaland are not attainable by 14 of the 20 clubs.

That's why I think there should be a number, a value stated that you can spend a year. £100m a year, maximum on incoming players. That applies whether you make £101m or £800m. It also isn't reduced by outgoings. If you sell a.player for £60m, them you can still only buy £100m of players that year.

Imo, that would make clubs more sustainable and puts everybody on an even keel regardless of starting point.

Also, an independent in every contractual conversation to ensure no dodgy deals and huge sporting sanctions for tapping up or shady monetary deals.
Wouldn't work. You would have to get the whole world to play by the same rules. And Saudi aren't listening now. And it doesn't address the problem of wages if you just limit the amount you can spend on players in a year.
 
This won’t stand for the reason that football is a global sport and the top PL teams are competing for players not just against each other, but against all the other teams in the world.

So they will say that they won’t be able to compete on the global stage. And they will be right.

Which it why it will never happen.

It will also never happen because it doesn't suit the teams at the top. Which is kind of half the point.
 
Personally I would say PSR rules mean a club can't lose any money. That would protect the clubs for the fans, and bring down the silly wages as clubs wouldn't be able to pay them.
You are right. But then the PL would not be able to buy-up the worlds best players and the TV contracts may eventually go elsewhere. It is a vicious circle created through sheer greed and ego. I remember when British teams were often the best in Europe without outspending the rest of the world. Eventually it is inevitable (without government legislation) that a number of clubs will locate to leagues created for generate even more cash for them. The game really has been well and truly stolen from the communities it was designed to serve.
 

Personally I would say PSR rules mean a club can't lose any money. That would protect the clubs for the fans, and bring down the silly wages as clubs wouldn't be able to pay them.

Personally would've thought Profit & Sustainability meant to help clubs not fall into a financial mess - 'sustain' the ability to operate. It's not FFP.

In our case, we've spent 3 seasons trying to rectify poor financial mismanagement and no doubt when the set of accounts for 2022/23 go in we'll look to have made a profit. Wolves, Leicester were doing the same thing. Tightening the belts based on guidelines.

The league should step in when they feel like a club is steering beyond the parameters they've set and work with them to correct it. Something we thought we were doing with the league.

But as mentioned by pundits...the penalty they've eventually given will just make clubs not be forthcoming and honest to them knowing full well they won't get a fair hearing.
 
I think it goes something like this 'hopefully' (as a worst case):

- 10pt deduction -avoid relegtion thanks to Dyche getting a tune from our squad
- Pay 100-120m to relegated clubs and avoid administation owing to player sales (Pickford, Onana, Branthwaite over the next 2 windows maybe 125m)
- Club sale completes - hurray, clean slate
- 2024-25 - we're into BMD! Somehow Dyche has to keep us in up 2024-25 without the lads above.
And when he does I hope he's recognised as one of our most 'successful' manager's of all time
 
Last edited:
I think it goes something like this 'hopefully':

- 10pt deduction -avoid relegtion thanks to Dyche getting a tune from our squad
- Pay 100-120m to relegated clubs and avoid administation owing to player sales (Pickford, Doucs, Branthwaite sold next summer, 150m)
- Club sale completes - hurray, clean slate
- 2024-25 - we're into BMD! Somehow Dyche has to keep us in up 2024-25 without the lads above.
And when he does I hope he's recognised as one of our most 'successful' manager's of all time
I don't see why them clubs should get a penny. We gained no sporting advantage.

They went down because they were crapper than us.
 
I don't see why them clubs should get a penny. We gained no sporting advantage.

They went down because they were crapper than us.
I agree, I don't think the losses can infer a sporting advantage because they clearly include a whole lot of sporting disadvantages. Trouble is, the report that a decision will likely be based on says there was a sporting advantage.

Hopefully clearer heads win out this time, because as you say it makes no sense for any relegated club to be owed money by Everton, but based on the scale of the punishment we've been handed out I'm not confident.
 

Welcome to GrandOldTeam

Get involved. Registration is simple and free.

Back
Top