MotoMkali Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 15 minutes ago, Czarnikjak said: 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) Amortisation is tranfers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted April 29 Moderator Share Posted April 29 17 minutes ago, MotoMkali said: Amortisation is tranfers It does not include all the associated agent fees, taxes, and all the rest. It's not exactly the same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AshVilla Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 (edited) 1 hour ago, OutByEaster? said: Just trying to pick an example of someone who might be able to erm, shall we say, "inflate", their revenues. Who knows what tricks we may pull in the summer with our new Comcast buddies. Edited April 29 by AshVilla Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AshVilla Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 1 hour ago, BleedClaretAndBlue said: So We’ll be qualifying for Champions League but our players will want to leave for midtable clubs to earn more money ? It's already happening isn't it. Wasn't Duran desperate to join Chelsea in January? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidcow Posted April 29 VT Supporter Share Posted April 29 3 hours ago, Zatman said: If a Super League comes up again, we will be putting our hand up to join it Plenty on here would love that. Week after week of getting absolutely smashed by the "glamour" clubs with zero chance of actually winning anything. But we get to watch Real and Bayern at Villa Park so that's OK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Steve Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 3 hours ago, Zatman said: If a Super League comes up again, we will be putting our hand up to join it Simply no evidence of that 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidcow Posted April 29 VT Supporter Share Posted April 29 2 hours ago, rubberman said: I guess we need to win the CL next season to get the boost we need pre-new rules. And build a new mega stadium. And bring in a few far eastern players. And put up the balti pie price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ender4 Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 1 hour ago, wishywashy said: This thread is under the impression that there won't be a 85% spending cap for Prem clubs, which The Times and The Athletic have both said will remain. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MotoMkali Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 1 hour ago, blandy said: It does not include all the associated agent fees, taxes, and all the rest. It's not exactly the same thing. Agents fees are also included. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stewiek2 Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 1 hour ago, OutByEaster? said: Yep - the chap with the twitter thread has missed the big fundamental rule that comes in first (I did too). This is interesting: Looks like Chelsea are the team most at risk in this. The key to this chart is, okay, let's say we can spend £211m compared to say, Everton spending £250m, I know who I'd rather trust to find bargains and unearth gems, Monchi and Don Unai. Plus we're putting things in place to raise revenue anyway. It's crap but there are ways round it with great recruitment for one. It's what Monchi does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Czarnikjak Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 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. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrBlack Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 I can only assume this constant changing and revision of the rules was on the cards when we cancelled the North Stand. A hard cap based on TV revenue leaves no incentive to increase the stadium capacity. If Uefa follow suit, and the 85% cap in the current revised rules goes away, then a big stadium is no help what so ever. It's no environment to make a major costly investment that could end up crippling you. Now these rules seem to be landing the way they are, hopefully we get some more clarity on what the plans are, because they presumably will still want to make it fit for purpose while they wait for the domines to fall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrBlack Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 1 minute ago, Czarnikjak said: The 85% cost control was voted in unanimously last week. Today's vote was for x5 anchor cap In Addition to cost control. How do you know this, is there a reliable source that confirms this? The BBC say its going to replace the existing rules, but doesn't mention anything about whether the recent 85% rule is part of what it considers the current regulations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobzy Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 2 hours ago, OutByEaster? said: Yep - the chap with the twitter thread has missed the big fundamental rule that comes in first (I did too). This is interesting: Looks like Chelsea are the team most at risk in this. Seems to be exactly what people wanted in terms of which clubs it impacts the most (and what it allows the rest to do). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ender4 Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 7 minutes ago, Czarnikjak said: The 85% cost control was voted in unanimously last week. Today's vote was for x5 anchor cap In Addition to cost control. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeordieVillan Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 The only thing clear from this thread is that no one really understands - 1) exactly what this all means. 2) exactly why the Big 6 vote was split. The Kieron Maguire Twitter post makes sense, but why would Liverpool not vote against it when they are in a similar position to Man Utd? 3) why Villa voted against and Newcastle voted for. All those saying that it’s because Newcastle can spend more next year, if it means they qualify for Europe and Villa don’t, then the roles are reversed the year after. We could then spend more the following season. There are two limiting factors - the European spend cap and the 4x proposed revenue cap - but ultimately there will be a finite ceiling regardless of your turnover. Both clubs will be building their revenues at the same time, both clubs have wealthy owners (billions is billions, regardless of the number of billions), and both clubs want to be in Europe. They should be on the same page on this. 4) after all the wrangling trying to stop Newcastle and the Saudis by the Big 6, I would be amazed if they opening the door to them now. Interesting but also confusing. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Czarnikjak Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobzy Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 (edited) 16 minutes 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 about this - everything seems to say we're going from current rules to the new capped one in 2025/26. The UEFA style one was "a proposal", but I can't see anything confirming it. Edit: Unless it's both, I guess. Edited April 29 by bobzy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deano & Dalian's Umbrella Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 43 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. What about this though ? https://x.com/johntownley11/status/1784962074273026206 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobzy Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 35 minutes ago, MotoMkali said: Agents fees are also included. I think you're missing what OP is saying. It isn't "£400m on transfers", it's "£400m on everything including transfers (amortised) and wages and staff costs and buying toilet roll and..." 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts