LondonLax Posted April 30 Share Posted April 30 18 hours 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. They are saying the 85% cap replaces the current PSR rules that we have right now. Then there is an additional cap of 4x base club’s revenue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MotoMkali Posted April 30 Share Posted April 30 20 hours ago, bobzy said: 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..." No it isn't. It's squad costs only - which is Amortisation, Agents Fees and Wages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarryOnVilla Posted April 30 Share Posted April 30 ok ok, so it’s an 85/70% of own revenue cap for every club in the league, but max of the x4 of the lowest club revenue in the league. so if you’re a club with yearly outgoings bigger than that x4, you have to make changes or get sanctions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul514 Posted April 30 Share Posted April 30 10 hours ago, Mazrim said: Why would we want to spend less? We could outmuscle all but 2 clubs maybe in the league if the shackles were off? Then again, the proposed cap would allow us to spend a shitload anyway so why vote against it? I'm scratching my head a bit tbh. The lowest clubs revenue x 4 is going to be half a billion, we generate about half of that. why do fans think owners want to put that into their clubs each year? Why not x 3 making it half the loss for us? Whatever the limit is will be the target for spending or get left behind. this is all pointless anyway, any club who plays European football or aspires to needs to comply with their FFP/PSR this sort of thing only sorts the issue for bottom 6/8 clubs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted May 1 Moderator Share Posted May 1 On 29/04/2024 at 20:29, MotoMkali said: Agents fees are also included. No, it’s complicated, but mostly they aren’t Quote This is because when clubs pay agents for the work they do for the club in securing a transfer, that fee is considered to be an external cost in acquiring an asset and is therefore capitalised on the balance sheet. This means about half of the fees clubs pay agents appear in their accounts as depreciation, not amortisation. Depreciation is how accountants recognise the declining value of an asset — like a stadium, training ground or some of what an agent does — over time. While this may sound very technical and, frankly, a bit dull, it is important in regards to squad cost calculations, as it should significantly reduce the amount of agents’ payments that actually count — only the payments which relate to services agents provide to players matter, as they are expensed through the club’s annual profit and loss accounts, in the same way as wages. Only the (ludicrous) situation whereby a club may pay a players agent for work that agent does for a player would be amortised. Agent fees for work an agent does for a club, no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MotoMkali Posted May 1 Share Posted May 1 9 hours ago, blandy said: No, it’s complicated, but mostly they aren’t Only the (ludicrous) situation whereby a club may pay a players agent for work that agent does for a player would be amortised. Agent fees for work an agent does for a club, no. I meant in the new 4.5x TV deal. You would be allowed to spend that on squad costs which is agents fees, amortisation and player wages. Maybe as you say some of them are not counted, but we would need more details to come to that conclusion for certain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wishywashy Posted May 3 Share Posted May 3 I'm surprised nobody's really tried this before! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Random Precision Posted May 3 Visiting Supporter Share Posted May 3 Legal challenge has been commenced against Associated Party deals and FMV, Ziegler believes it’s Man City. If the case is successful it will have major implications for sponsorship deals. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts