Czarnikjak

46 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

Apparently an article in the Times today - I don't have an account - claiming that we're pushing for a £30m increase to the PSR allowance for next season, according to Stefan Borson:

I've seen quite a lot of takes on here suggesting we aren't at much risk from PSR, but I think people should be asking themselves why we would be pushing this if we weren't. Don't think it's implausible we get a points deduction next season. 

We are at risk, hence we asking for extra £30m. However, we can easily generate that £30m by selling a player if other clubs won't agree to the rules change. We won't get any points deducted, we have too many assets we can easily sell to generate that amount.

I certainly cannot see other 13 teams voting for it to help us out though, so we will be selling for profit.

2 hours ago, Genie said:

I’d be very surprised if men with genuine cases of asthma could compete at the very top level of such a gruelling sport (cycling).

It’s cheating.

 

Majority of top cross country skiing athletes allegedly have asthma and take inhalers. Poor souls

Imagine how good they would have been if they didn't have asthma

12 hours ago, Jenko#4 said:

Could it be Kounde? I saw a link to him a couple of days back, but….

-He was playing for Sevilla when Monchi was there (he may have signed him)

-We need RB/CB reinforcements next season

-He has played with Diaby, Kamara at international level and Carlos and Lenglet at club level

-Barca want to raise funds for Cancelo and Felix

 

Fabrizio Romano said no, nothing to do with Kounde.

9 hours ago, BleedClaretAndBlue said:

Well like Simon Jordan said, Aston Villa are not punching above their weight; they’re punching towards their weight.

In my head at least, we’re the 4th biggest and most successful club in this land. Chelsea & Man City have doped their way to overtaking us in the Major Trophies Honours list, but I dont count that BS. We are still 4th and thats despite winning diddly squat since ‘96.

How far back in time do you go though? Huddersfield are 11th in terms of league titles...are they 11th biggest team in the country? Preston were very good before the wars, are they still big club?

Truth is, we've done and won **** all of note since the 80s, and were left behind the current elite. We're not entitled to anything because of history, if we want to be the 4th biggest club we need to prove it on the pitch and build our image season over season (not just one of top 4 finish, that won't be enough to convince anybody).

43 minutes ago, Jareth said:

Selling Ramsey would be a huge disappointment, when he gets his fitness back he's going to be awesome again.

As long as we keep Martinez, Konsa, Mcginn and Watkins I will be happy. Everybody else is expandable if good offer comes in.

1 minute ago, NorthEastVillan said:

It's a bit confusing tbh. The way I read it it you can spend 70% of your revenue (if in europe), up to a maximum of £466m.

If you're not in Europe it's 85% up to the Anchoring level of £466m.

So any way you look at it £466 is the most any team can spend. European football or not.

Yes, this is correct in principle, although that £466m value is still being negotiated and it will be most likely higher.

It is however incorrect to say that ANY team that doesn't qualify for Europe will be allowed to spend £466m, this is the nonsense that is being spread on the forum.

6 minutes ago, viivvaa66 said:

There are two caps on squad cost, the UEFA cap that say cost of the squad have to be 70% of revenue and the Premier League cap that says the squad cost have to be limited to £466mill.

Our current revenue is around £200mill, meaning we can spend £140mill on the squad. While other Premier League team that haven’t qualified for Europe can spend £466mill. To be able to spend as much as the rest of the Premier League teams we have to raise our revenue to £665mill.

No, this incorrect information is being spread. Premier League clubs that don't qualify for Europe won't be able to spend £466m. They will be limited to %85 of their revenue.

6 minutes ago, PieFacE said:

I think all teams will still have to adhere to some form of financial restrictions similar to UEFA's 80/70%. There's no getting around that. So it's not like Bournemouth can go and spend £500m and be fine.

What the anchor will do is limit the amount teams like Man City and Man United can spend. If we say for example the anchor will be set at 4x (random value) the amount of money the team who came bottom made from TV, it would be set at approximately £400m. Which means Man City and Man United would only be able to spend up to £400m even tho they earn a lot more.

At least, that's how i've understood it. 

The idea isn't to boost the amount of money teams with lower revenue can spend, but to limit the amount the high rollers can spend. I think. 

Yes, in the nutshell. So if big teams want to spend more, it will be in their interest to distribute broadcast revenue more evenly to smaller teams.

Win, win situation. 

He migh be good option on the treatment bench next season...

25 minutes ago, alreadyexists said:

I’m baffled… is this good or bad for us? Or do we not know yet? 

There are 2 parts to this new regulations:

1. Anchor Cap - this can only be good for us and 90% of Premier League

2. 85-70 Cap - good for our owners wallets, bad for our competitiveness 

Both statements apply only to our current situation, and could change as our situation changes.

2 minutes ago, Deano & Dalian's Umbrella said:

What about this though ?

 

https://x.com/johntownley11/status/1784962074273026206

 

John Townley is usually clueless on this topic, but this tweet is correct.

1 minute ago, ender4 said:

The 85% cost control was voted in for 2024/25. 

The anchor cap vote today was for 2025/26 onwards to replace the 85% cost control. 
 

Not one article is saying otherwise.

Not sure where you reading this.

All Athletic articles I read are pretty clear, for 24/25 season existing PSR rules will still be in place. For 25/26 onwards Cost Control rules take over.

23 minutes ago, ender4 said:

It’s funny that we both read the same articles and have interpreted it completely different.  
 

As far as I can tell, and I’m pretty confident that is what The Times and The Athletic are trying to say, is that this new fixed cap will REPLACE the 85% PSR limits. The key word there in both articles is the word “replace”.   
 

Of course, they might be wrong themselves, but that is what they are telling us.  In my interpretation of course.

The 85% cost control was voted in unanimously last week. Today's vote was for x5 anchor cap In Addition to cost control.

6 minutes ago, imavillan said:

there's a pretty good summation here

I've put all the posts for those who are not on x/twitter

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No, he got few things wrong there. He forgot about 85% limit for clubs that don't qualify for Europe.

Also, when he says "to spend £400m on transfers" this is plainly wrong. There's no limit on "transfers"...only squad costs (wages, amortisation and agent fees)

11 minutes ago, TRO said:

Are we ready for Champions league?.....missing out on the Europa, is a huge step up.

Don't get me wrong, I want to achieve it, but I wonder, if we are actually ready for it.

You never know if you ready until you test yourself. Let's don't over complicate it, we might never get a better chance to play in Champions league.

7 hours ago, oishiiniku_uk said:

I see a lot of Spurs fans/pundits trying to convince themselves and others that they were 'unlucky' and that they 'won' on most stats(!) vs Arsenal but how long will the faith in Angeball last if they can't fix the obvious deficiencies? Namely: their weakness at defending set pieces and how vulnerable their high line makes them to counter attacks (asking Van de Ven to bail you out multiple times every game seems unsustainable). Also, claiming you won on possession/shots/open play xg etc. isn't that valid when the opponent is happy to play mostly on the counter or look for set piece opportunities (as Arsenal were yesterday). 

Somehow Angebal is better at defending set pieces than Emery ball https://trigger-the-press.com/premier-league-set-pieces-67593/

1 hour ago, tinker said:

Can't believe the amount of moaning they are doing,  supported by the media, over the disallowed goal. It was a clear foul that gained them an advantage, would we want a game where those type of challenge are allowed? Shoulder to shoulder I can understand but a barge in the back is just cheating.

Problem was that the ref didn't give it real time. If he gave it (as he should) this would be a non story.

1 minute ago, duke313 said:

It will allow clubs with rich owners not in Europe to spend vast amounts as they are so far off the cap they have massive head room.

No! They will still be subject to 85% rule 

16 minutes ago, ender4 said:

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.

85% limit for non European clubs will still stay with this hard multiplayer cap. This is not bad news for us at all...the whole 85%~70% cap is terrible for our competitiveness though.

7 minutes ago, ender4 said:

It makes sense.  The 'big 6' have massive revenues, the cap is so high that they hit the European cap first but can still spend £300-400m or so a season. 

The small revenue clubs not in Europe can now massively outspend Villa up to £300-400m per season.

Villa hit the European cap first rather than the PL cap, so we can only spend £150-200m per season. 

Basically it kills Villa and any other non big 6 club that qualifies for Europe.  

 

This is literally the worst option of all spending proposals for Villa.  Almost like it was specifically designed to kill Villa and Newcastle.

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

8 minutes ago, DevonIsAPlaceOnEarth said:

Betfair sports book currently offering 200/1 on United finishing in the top 4, despite being 13 points behind with four to play. Even Fergie would struggle to do that.

That's pretty clever from Betfsir. Some United fans who can't count might still fall for it and hand them over some money.

2 minutes ago, TheMightyVillans said:

if chelsea play like they did against us and spurs play like that then I can see chelsea winning 4-3

That's a big if. We haven't seen Chelsea have 2 good games in a row this season. They can be all over the place.

25 minutes ago, UpTheVilla26 said:

Bunch of tiktok, wannabe road men. 

I'd be embarrassed if our players acted like them on the pitch. 

You wouldn't if we acted like them and won the game. This is only topic of conversation as we drew the game.

12 minutes ago, Zatman said:

2nd lowest scoring team in the league after buying a 30 million striker. He has not done an amazing job at all. He kept them up but has done a pretty average job as thats not Everton ambition

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.

4 hours 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 

LOL, 4th best defensive record in the division is now an incredibly bad team? Dyche has done amazing job, credit where credit is due.