Psr another season not squad ratio

[GrandOldTeam]

Im not sure it is just the top teams, Bournemouth are making great use of it, and I can't imagine they are paying huge wages to players. Our problem is purely the spending on our wages and lack of recruitment scope has left us unable to find good players for decent fees and low wages. We are stuck with huge wages on players and every new guy asking for similar terms.

They've spent £250m+ net the last few years.

 

[MercuryBlue88]

They've spent £250m+ net the last few years.

Hardly a big club though, our issue as usual is behind the scenes we have been the least professional club in the premier league. We have hamstrung ourselves with our own incompetence from Moshiri down.

 

[Neiler]

There will be some clubs that need to get deals done before July. Think Newcastle, Villa and Man Utd were mentioned. Probably some more PSR swaps will get done.

We might have a bit of work to do ourselves this year before July mate.

 

[bluestevon]

We (fans) don’t know enough to say if this is a good or bad thing. We don’t know how much we can spend with PSR, nor how much we could have spent with SCR.

The fact they have to keep it for another year because of fannying about is the best part.

In the first season at moving I think the current PSR will be better than SCR, PSR you can do work around arounds, SCR is way more a hard line you can't really do anything with - for a team which will need a good few loans as well SCR is a lot more restrictive in that regard

 

[hallamblue]

They've spent £250m+ net the last few years.

Which is sustainable if you don't pay silly wages and have a normal turnover of players. The problem comes when you pay the players too much as then you can't offload them, even on loan. That's the situation we need to avoid in the future.

 

[hallamblue]

In the first season at moving I think the current PSR will be better than SCR, PSR you can do work around arounds, SCR is way more a hard line you can't really do anything with - for a team which will need a good few loans as well SCR is a lot more restrictive in that regard

SCR sounds a lot fairer in principle, and I imagine the likes of FSG and Jim Ratcliffe liking it as it guarantees they'll make huge profits in the future.

 

[Amokachi1995]

We might have a bit of work to do ourselves this year before July mate.

Yeah. I've no idea, they were the ones called out in the press as having a big gap. I am hopeful that keeping our powder dry in January will see us OK. But who knows.

 

[Bedfordblue]

They've spent £250m+ net the last few years.

Was just going to ask if that included the profit from Solanke, checked and saw they paid £19m with a 20% sell on to the scruffs, on £55m + £10m so not as big a deal for them as I initially thought! Tidy sum still but not as good as the £65m sale headlines suggest.

 

[Neiler]

Yeah. I've no idea, they were the ones called out in the press as having a big gap. I am hopeful that keeping our powder dry in January will see us OK. But who knows.

We're compliant up to June 24 mate.

But we had a good 6 months, getting mullared by interest up until TFG cleaned up the balance sheet in Dec.

I imagine we're still loss making.

For scope, our last published accounts we lost £89 mill in 22/23 before allowances, we should know our 23/24 figure before the end of March - i doubt we turned around £89 mill completely, then its going to be whatever we lose from June 24 -25. The Threshold is £105 mill.

We could well have PSR work to do before June.

 

[GrandOldTeam]

Was just going to ask if that included the profit from Solanke, checked and saw they paid £19m with a 20% sell on to the scruffs, on £55m + £10m so not as big a deal for them as I initially thought! Tidy sum still but not as good as the £65m sale headlines suggest.

Aye there's a perception, and one that I had, that they'd not spent much. I twigged they had 2/3 players, one on the bench, who cost more than what we spent on our entire squad when they beat us. Checked and realised they'd spend a fair whack like. Well, but still a lot.

Which is sustainable if you don't pay silly wages and have a normal turnover of players. The problem comes when you pay the players too much as then you can't offload them, even on loan. That's the situation we need to avoid in the future.

Im not sure it's sustainable for a team like Bournemouth to spend that amount every 3 years? I think they'll cut their cloth and unless they sell particularly well - I wouldn't be at all surprised if within 5/6 years they go down.

I shared the view on here that it'll happen to Wolves when they were flavour of the month. Particularly to one rather mouthy Wolves fan on here who felt they were going to be title challengers. Theyll survive this season, but I think the game is rigged so the likes of Bournemouth have a very clear ceiling.

[Edit] This is what I mean, I'm not sure Bournemouth can maintain this spend, competitive to the rest of the league;

 

[OneTrueLegend]

The BBC are reporting a couple of things which I think are crucial;

• There has been no vote, clubs have not voted to keep PSR, there was an informal meeting where all but one club wanted PSR scrapped, in favour of SCR.
• The reason PSR is being kept is because clubs could not agree on the timescale for implementation of SCR and the "Anchoring" which is designed to stop the Highest earning clubs from being able to spend way more than the other clubs. Early plans for this described it as 4 times the amount that the bottom club could spend. So for example if Southampton can only spend £100m, the most anyone in the league can spend on players wages and transfers would be £400m

Premier League's existing PSR set to be retained for 2025-26 season after concerns over Man City legal case and new football regulator

The Premier League's existing profitability and sustainability rules are set to be retained for next season following discussions between member clubs at a shareholders' meeting.

www.bbc.co.uk

I think this is going to be negative for us in the summer window, but I can understand it, if City win their legal challenge, it could block the Premier league for having any say at all on spending

 

[GrandOldTeam]

Hardly a big club though, our issue as usual is behind the scenes we have been the least professional club in the premier league. We have hamstrung ourselves with our own incompetence from Moshiri down.

The rule will always favour the biggest clubs though, who have the capacity/bandwidth to have bigger budgets and squads.

Occasionally, teams in a cycle of spend will benefit, but generally the increase of match day squads, and 5 subs per game is going to benefit the top teams.

 

[Amokachi1995]

We're compliant up to June 24 mate.

But we had a good 6 months, getting mullared by interest up until TFG cleaned up the balance sheet in Dec.

I imagine we're still loss making.

For scope, our last published accounts we lost £89 mill in 22/23 before allowances, we should know our 23/24 figure before the end of March - i doubt we turned around £89 mill completely, then its going to be whatever we lose from June 24 -25. The Threshold is £105 mill.

We could well have PSR work to do before June.

Have we got any hotels we can sell to the Friedkins.

 

[hallamblue]

City and Chelsea won't want the new regulations as they are artificially inflating the size of their clubs. If everybody has the same spend it will level the field somewhat and teams like us and Newcastle with big fantasies will come into the equation.

 

[Makis]

Players' Association is against anchoring because it would put a cap on how much top clubs can pay them. They have already threatened to take it to courts if implemente.