ThunderPower_14 Posted June 16 Share Posted June 16 These rules feel like they were written by agents, making having to move players around basically essential to staying on top of FFP rules. There should absolutely not be an advantage to moving a player like there is with the Luiz swap deal. Spitballing and not really thinking about potential consequences, I'd introduce a rule where after 4 seasons at a club, a player's wages no longer count towards FFP. Encourage retention and lessen the reward for moving players around for silly money every offseason. It just lines the pockets of player agents and sucks some of the heart and soul out of the game. Doug has built up with us and fired us to the CL and it seems ridiculous that we now need to sell him because swapping him for players of similar value gives us more freedom in relation to FFP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thabucks Posted June 18 Share Posted June 18 Thinks it’s unfair that the calculations include agent fees. These should be capped as it’s just ransom money in some instances 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post paul514 Posted June 18 Popular Post Share Posted June 18 4 minutes ago, thabucks said: Thinks it’s unfair that the calculations include agent fees. These should be capped as it’s just ransom money in some instances agent fees should be banned, they are there to look after the player, he can pay them. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Random Precision Posted June 19 Visiting Supporter Share Posted June 19 10 hours ago, thabucks said: Thinks it’s unfair that the calculations include agent fees. These should be capped as it’s just ransom money in some instances The PL attempted to cap agents fees over a year or so ago and the agents instigated legal action that such a move would be anti competitive. The PL lost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PieFacE Posted June 20 VT Supporter Share Posted June 20 Wonder how long it will be until the PL try to close the "loophole" of troubled clubs trading players to get around PSR issues. Seems like an easy way around it. Trade a few youth players back and forth with other clubs and PSR issues go away. Will have such a negative impact on young players though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duke313 Posted June 20 Share Posted June 20 3 minutes ago, PieFacE said: Wonder how long it will be until the PL try to close the "loophole" of troubled clubs trading players to get around PSR issues. Seems like an easy way around it. Trade a few youth players back and forth with other clubs and PSR issues go away. Will have such a negative impact on young players though. Not sure how the PL could stop it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duke313 Posted June 20 Share Posted June 20 (edited) Good thread from 2020 on the Pjanic/Arthur deal that saw Juve get docked 15 points Sounds familiar, albeit without the inflated fees. Edited June 20 by duke313 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted June 20 Moderator Share Posted June 20 Right now, somewhere in the UK an accountant is buying a very expensive watch, smiling softly and thinking fond thoughts about Premier League regulations. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Czarnikjak Posted June 20 Share Posted June 20 22 minutes ago, duke313 said: Good thread from 2020 on the Pjanic/Arthur deal that saw Juve get docked 15 points Sounds familiar, albeit without the inflated fees. Yes, and it was the absurdly inflated fees that saw them penalised, therefore we will be absolutely fine with our swap. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 23 hours ago, cheltenham_villa said: my understanding is that Forest were very open with the PL, highlighting that they wouldnt sell the play for a reduced fee but would make sure the player was sold. This was proven later one when they secured an additional 10m for Johnsen. I think this is why forest were so surprised by the reduction, theyd been open and honest but also showed a plan to mitigate the losses, all be it outside of the period. Our situation looks very similar to me. I don't know where you've read that re Forest being 'very open with the PL', but I've read the judgement and that isn't the story. They were open about *why they hadn't sold Johnson when they were asked about it afterwards*, but the way you've framed it here sounds like they asked for permission or told the PL what they were doing beforehand, which does not seem to be true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rightdm00 Posted June 22 Share Posted June 22 We sold our stadium to ourselves the final year we were in the championship. Chelsea just sold a hotel back to themselves. All clubs are cooking the books. That's why a revenue based cap was always going to fail. The new rules have to institute a league wide spending cap. Let ambitious owners spend but only up to a certain level each season. I believe the anchoring system goes into place next season so that's a good start. The sooner we are done with revenue based caps the better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted June 22 Moderator Share Posted June 22 3 minutes ago, Rightdm00 said: I believe the anchoring system goes into place next season so that's a good start. in that system, aren't the spends anchored to revenue? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Made In Aston Posted June 22 Share Posted June 22 On 20/06/2024 at 10:56, sne said: FFP, PSR, VAR. T"his isn't your grandfather's football" Well they wouldn't have believed you if you had told them that, in the future, football fans would regularly be discussing accounting principles as part of sporting chat. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rightdm00 Posted June 22 Share Posted June 22 10 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said: in that system, aren't the spends anchored to revenue? It's based on the TV revenue of the 20th placed club. Then a multiple is applied. Still think in the future a hard cap will be developed but at least anchoring removes all the FFP accounting shenanigans. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PieFacE Posted June 22 VT Supporter Share Posted June 22 39 minutes ago, Rightdm00 said: I believe the anchoring system goes into place next season so that's a good start. From what I've read the anchoring system will make no difference to us. We'll still be limited by the revenue we generate as that side of FFP is still in place. The anchoring system is to stop Man City etc from spending loads. At least that's my understanding, happy to be proven wrong though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rightdm00 Posted June 22 Share Posted June 22 1 hour ago, PieFacE said: From what I've read the anchoring system will make no difference to us. We'll still be limited by the revenue we generate as that side of FFP is still in place. The anchoring system is to stop Man City etc from spending loads. At least that's my understanding, happy to be proven wrong though. It will mean nothing to us right now. If we are to compete at the highest levels our spending will have to grow, by alot. We need to be in that group of clubs that is pushing against the cap if we want consistent European campaigns and top 4 finishes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rds1983 Posted June 22 VT Supporter Share Posted June 22 2 hours ago, Made In Aston said: Well they wouldn't have believed you if you had told them that, in the future, football fans would regularly be discussing accounting principles as part of sporting chat. My Grandad was an accountant. He'd probably have been excited about the prospect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 22 Share Posted June 22 3 minutes ago, Rds1983 said: My Grandad was an accountant. He'd probably have been excited about the prospect. My grandad was too, he didn't work for a great company though, he just made up the numbers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wishywashy Posted June 22 Share Posted June 22 (edited) So PSR is encouraging a multitude of clubs, not just us, to embark on swap deals that whose inflated values actually lead to increased amortisation costs long term to circumvent rules that were thinking about football finance a decade ago and have led to ambitious clubs being forced to take high risk, short-term thinking moves such as selling academy players they don't want to at large prices, in order to compete. PSR doesn't encourage the S part of its name whatsoever. We'll be fine, our owners are clever. There are other clubs seemingly getting into this who don't have that luxury... Edited June 22 by wishywashy 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allani Posted June 22 Share Posted June 22 2 minutes ago, wishywashy said: So PSR is encouraging a multitude of clubs, not just us, to embark on swap deals that whose inflated values actually lead to increased amortisation costs long term to circumvent rules that were thinking about football finance a decade ago and have led to ambitious clubs being forced to take high risk, short-term thinking moves such as selling academy players they don't want to at large prices, in order to compete. PSR doesn't encourage the S part of its name whatsoever. Just as "fair" was never encouraged by its predecessor. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts