ender4

1 minute ago, wishywashy said:

Now I genuinely have no clue: in the Independent article you can read it both ways, and in the Times' article (by Martyn Ziegler so pretty much the defining authority) it suggests that the squad cost control replaces PSR and that once again it'd be in addition.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/81e36d08-ad3a-470b-8a8b-7fc0c540a74e?shareToken=cf42a3f3d4cef7bbed7def89354ca948

So the BBC suggest it replaces the limit, Independent you can argue both ways, and the Times suggest it's in addition. The joys of the media. And English.

Though The Times also suggests a conflicting viewpoint in the same sentence - the sentence starts with "The Premier League has already agreed to replace..."  using the word replace.  But then continues by talking about 85% limit.   I now have no idea lol.

10 minutes ago, mark359 said:

Desperately hoping I will be able to get a ticket when my criteria opens up in 10 mins, having been to the other Europe home games, but not very confident. 
 

For the Lille game I logged on as soon as it opened and there was nothing, but I kept trying in the following days and a whole block opened up in Doug Ellis. Not really time for that to happen now

Well right now the ticket website is showing zero tickets left for the game.  So it would be Lower Grounds or Terrace View tickets coming onto general sale if they decide to do that.

Weirdly there is no button to buy LG or TV tickets.

11 minutes ago, wishywashy said:

Ahhh, I see what you mean.

That does seem... questionable. Would make far more sense to combine them.

Not sure why Newcastle would vote in favour of that sort of proposal.

Maybe more fake sponsorship deals on the horizon to massively increase revenue so that they are fine spending more under the UEFA Squad Ratio Rules. But they won't spend so much that they will hit the new PL cap.

1 minute ago, Baldricks Cunning Plan said:

The below is what the Independent are reporting - I think that WishyWashy is right.

 

In principle, the idea is to prevent a further widening of the financial chasm that is increasingly seen between the top and bottom ends of the league. In reality, it might mean that excessive and lucrative sponsorship deals made by the richest club have no additional impact on their spending power, if their income is already over the anchored amount of the least affluent sides.

Clubs have already agreed to replace the current Profitability and Sustainability Rules (PSR) from 2025-26 onwards, with cost controls instead limiting club expenditure on salaries, signing and fees to 85 per cent of total revenue.

No, that's exactly what i'm saying. 

Look at the word i've bolded - it says "REPLACE" PSR, not in addition to PSR.

10 minutes ago, wishywashy said:

The Premier League will be restricting teams to 85% spend of turnover from next season anyway (which is the big change that's replacing FFP in it's current form), so Newcastle wouldn't be able to do that. The new UEFA financial rules will be restricting teams to 90% spend next season, then 70% from 2025-26, so we wouldn't feel any additional restrictive effects from being in Europe next season.

So the Premier League rules will definitely be a bit looser for teams not in Europe, 15% more of turnover to be precise, but I suppose that's mitigated a bit as teams in Europe will get more money. I can see why the likes of Villa and Newcastle might not be overly keen, but this was unanimously agreed on about a month ago, and this hard cap would be an additional measure.

I guess one reason you'd be opposed would be if you think the Premier League's broadcasting money has peaked with this current deal, and will decrease in the coming years to the point where the 'hard cap' suddenly becomes restrictive for more than just the likes of Chelsea and Man City.

Yes and no. 

The PL PSR rules are for 2024-25 season. 

Then the new PL cap system replaces the PL PSR rules for 2025-26 onwards.

https://www.sportsmole.co.uk/football/ac-milan/transfer-talk/news/ac-milan-lining-up-move-for-aston-villa-man_542486.html

Quote

AC Milan have reportedly shortlisted an Aston Villa player as a potential defensive target for the summer transfer window.

All things considered, Milan have enjoyed a respectable 2023-24 campaign, notably sitting in second position in the Serie A standings.

However, while their performance in the league will again deliver Champions League football, sitting 19 points adrift of champions Inter Milan will reportedly have ramifications.

Last week, it was claimed that the Milan board are ready to part ways with long-serving head coach Stefano Pioli in a bid to close the gap to their neighbours.

As well as opting for a fresh approach from the dugout, the likelihood is that different options will be acquired for a number of positions in the squad.

https://football-italia.net/milan-start-negotiations-aston-villa/

Quote

Milan director Geoffrey Moncada has opened direct talks with Aston Villa defender Diego Carlos ahead of the summer transfer window.

The Rossoneri have struggled with cover in defence for large parts of this season, an issue that’ll again be present in their upcoming clash with Juventus. As such, a new centre back is one of many reinforcements set to arrive in the summer.

The Rossoneri appreciate the 31-year-old’s leadership skills, experience, strong aerial ability and strong man-marking. The Villans aren’t keen to give up the defender for cheap, having spent €31m to sign him from Sevilla back in July 2022.

The only good thing is that this is from the 2025/26 season. We have 14 months to basically double our current revenue if we want to compete at the top end of the table.

6 minutes ago, Czarnikjak said:

No. This cap doesn't replace the proposed new Premier League PSR rules, it's only in addition to them.

It's scrapping the PSR rules and replacing with this new cap.

2 minutes ago, Baldricks Cunning Plan said:

I think that the spending cap will be in conjunction with the PSR rules linked to Spending/Turnover ratios which is rumoured to be 85% in the Premier League. If anything it will mean that the biggest clubs can't go crazy with their spending, other clubs can but they would then fall foul of the spending/turnover ratios. In practice it doesn't change much from what I can see.

I think this is meant to replace the current Premier League PSR rules. 

1 minute ago, duke313 said:

Why did Chelsea abstain?  Do they plan on spending another billion if they don't qualify for Europe 

Yes i guess so. It makes sense that they would want to spend more than the current rules allow. 

I'm surprised West Ham voted for this seeing that they are a small revenue club who aspire to qualify for Europe.

I guess they never plan to spend anywhere close to any cap so it makes no difference to them lol.

12 minutes ago, duke313 said:

We're in good company with the teams that voted against 

Can anyone explain what it means? Why did we vote against it? Will it impact us negatively?

Massive negative for Villa and Newcastle. 

It doesn't impact the 'big 6' as they have huge revenues so can spend up to the UEFA cap of 75% of income, and still not hit this PL cap. 

Means those smaller clubs not in Europe can spend massively more, up to £400m a season rather than current rules of around £150-200m (dependant on their turnover). 

Villa and Newcastle are screwed - they are still capped by UEFA rules which is based on their smaller turnover, but now smaller clubs can spend double what Villa and Newcastle spend. 

I think we might try and sell him in the summer if we can get a decent price so that we don’t make a loss.

 He’s 30 years old and whilst decent isn’t going to improve at his age.

44 minutes ago, Czarnikjak said:

He won them 44 points so far, the same amount De Zerbi has with Brighton.

With all the chaos behind the scenes and club being in danger of administration, this is great achievement by Dyche.

Yep ignoring their points deduction, they are 19 points above the relegation zone and 9-10 points away from a European place.

5 minutes ago, Leeroy said:

I feel like last night was 2 points dropped than 1 point gained. We didn't turn up and this is the confusing thing about this team: brilliant when you least expect it (Arsenal), then shite when you're expecting a big performance like last night.

That’s basically true of virtually every team in this league.

Also we’ve still dropped the least points from a winning position out of 20 teams in the league.

Just now, KevinRichardsonsMoustache said:

Duran 94

I’ll go Watkins 97th min

I’ll take a point now

So where is Carlos playing?  5 at back?

Who would we change to solidify us?

We don’t like playing Chelsea do we?

1 minute ago, 479Villan said:

I wish we had Moreno right now, because I'd be fine bringing him into midfield like he did for cover on the Zaniolo injury.

Is he out for season or back next week?

1 minute ago, alreadyexists said:

Oh is it? I hadn’t heard, that would be great if so. A clear consistency point on where to measure it from, and measure the precise point it’s kicked 

Yeah, it’s like a Hawkeye style AI thing. Works well in Europe already. 

13 minutes ago, punkiller1981 said:

It is a good achievement but they are an incredibly bad team so I think as much as anything it shows how poor the bottom of the league has been this year 

If they didn’t get a points deduction they are only 5 points from 8th position.