Was reading up a bit on the new financial rules set to be applied after the coming season. I don't generally get involved in the money discussions as find them a bit complicated to say the least. Maybe others can help enlighten. My understanding is basically all clubs will be able to spend 70% of their total revenue giving clubs like city a potential pot of circa 700m, Newcastle 350m etc. Top clubs are guaranteed their top status. However there is a glimmer of hope there for Leeds I think. Were told were somewhere around tenth in total income. Therefore, if my theory is right, we'll have the financial capacity of a mid table pl team which would obviously be a complete game changer for us. Am I missing something here?
Is this right accross the board in football or just the prem? If it’s for every team then yes good for Leeds as long as we get promoted. Failing to go up will see our revenues drop yet again next season as oarachute payment reduced and going plus the fire sale of players. We need promotion badly and the 49ers know it
I don’t know if it’s across the board. I too would be interested in having that confirmed. If it is and I suspect it is, even still in championship we’d have a huge advantage
Would be interesting to know because currently the amount of loss you can make is far less in the championship than in the premier league. But for the top league you’re right. Still designed to stop any other than the “traditional big” clubs from competing. Simon Jordan on talkSPORT is openly saying that the PSR rules may kill the golden goose of the premier league by making it like other leagues where eventually only 1 or 2 clubs can win it, the competitiveness was the big sell. Or as he puts it, “we created a multi billion pound industry, watched all over the world so what is PSR meant to fix”?
To take full advantage you need owners prepared to run the club at a loss. We tend to focus on regulatory restrictions on what clubs can spend, but changing the rules helps City as I doubt their owners care, it does not help if the regulations just allow clubs to run up bigger losses. I admit the full extent of my knowledge is limited to your post but my gut feel is this is bad for football. A licence to spend for City, a danger that lesser clubs will follow and get into financial trouble, and clubs that manage their finances prudently will be at a disadvantage playing-wise.
My understanding of it though is with clubs restricted to spending 70% of income after next year it won’t be possible to run at a loss. I don’t understand any of it either so guessing
The new PSR rules are only going to be trialled and will still be run in conjunction with existing PSR rules. Clubs playing in European competitions are limited to only being allowed to spend a maximum of 70% of their turnover on playing related activities (player wages, transfer fee losses and agent fees). Clubs that only compete in domestic leagues can spend up to 85% of their turnover. In addition it is proposed to have what they call an "anchoring rule", where by no club in the league can spend more than a multiplier of the club with the lowest turnover. Thus if the lowest turnover for an EPL club is £100m and the multiplier is set at 5, then the other 19 clubs can spend no more than £500m or the relative % of their turnover whichever is the lower. The multiplier hasn't been set, but obviously those clubs with a very high turnover may be restricted to only being allowed to spend 40 or 50% of their income due to the anchoring restriction. The question is what happens the following season. Say city have a turnover of £1 billion pounds and spend £500m on player related outgoings. They have thus in theory made a profit of £500m. Are they still restricted on only spending in relation to turnover next season or are they allowed to spend previous seasons profits as well. Do clubs start paying dividends to shareholders and take the profit out of football even more so than the likes of Bates and the Glazers have done in the past and would it even be wrong for them to do so, if a football club is treated like any other type of business. Or are the football authorities expecting clubs to be pragmatic and keep those profits as a reserve should they be relegated, thus especially within the English game, doing away with parachute payments. I wouldn't be too hopeful of that happening for most clubs.
Well done Aski so rather than a positive for Leeds it could turn out to be an “anchor” around our necks. Think we need to have some serious reforms in football administration (not clubs in administration) FA, EFL, Premier league and then we have the European overlord and FIFA. Nothing is joined up, nothing marries or crosses over right from PSR type rules to how VAR is carried out. The way the premier league was formed and allowed to break away from the FA and EFL just shows sheer greed for a select few clubs and the so called football pyramid feeding off handouts. Let’s be honest here the prem is reall just a breakaway league who has the best of both worlds.
Another question arising from Askis analysis is when a club like Luton get promoted, surely their tiny turnover then drives down what every other club can spend due to the multiplier rule. Surely this is more complex than whatever is there already
Unless I am mistaken, that surely is exactly what we need. If we can get into the Premier League along with a club with a very low turnover and, let's say the anchor is 5 and our turnover is 5 x theirs then our spend allowance becomes the same as Man City, Arsenal, Chelsea etc. A few seasons of that would level the playing field!! Of course, it wouldn't happen, the "big" clubs would get the rules changed to suit them
In which case the 'big' clubs buggering off to a so called super league would be of benefit to us. I wonder if a part of that whole super league idea was them sensing what may be happening with PSR and realising that the ladder they'd pulled up behind them was going to be let down and allow others with major sponsors to catch up.
If you think about it, any club that is in the Premier League should at present receive in excess of £100m of turnover. In 2022/23 season the guaranteed payment for broadcast rights was £89m. We received the lowest share of that, and we still received £112m, so £40m in excess of what was guaranteed. However if we presume that a club would have no other income than the guaranteed minimum of £89m, then an "anchor limit" of x5 multiplier would mean no club could spend more than £445m of their turnover. (NB we have no idea what multiplier is going to be applied so I'm just using x5 as an example) This would have placed restrictions on 3 clubs, Man City, and Scum, who both qualified for Europe and thus would have been only able to spend 70% of their turnover, and Spurs who would have had the 85% limit in place. City had turnover of £718m which means they should be able to spend £503m of that on player related activities. However due to the "anchor rate" they would have had to spend £58m less. Scum had a turnover of £650m, which means they should have been able to spend £455m, however the "anchor rate" would have reduced their spending level by a further £10m. Spurs had a turnover of £549m, however as they didnt qualify for Europe, this meant they would have been able to spend up to 85% of that turnover or £466m ( by not qualifying for Europe they would in theory be able to spend £12m more than Scum, despite their turnover being £100m lower). Due to the "anchor rate" their spending limit is reduced by £22m. If the proposed new rules had been in effect during the 2022/23 season, then the spending limit for each club remaining in the Premier League would have been the figures in the "anchor limit" column on the basis that the lowest income had been £89m. As the actual minimum income was £121m for Bournemouth, the "anchor limit" would not have come into effect, and all clubs would have been able to spend to the "PSR" limit. As an added note, Man City, Scum and Newcastle all voted against these new proposals. Chelsea abstained and the remaining 16 Premier League clubs at the time of the vote, were all in favour
I think it’s all a restriction on trade whatever your views are on football finances. A business should be able to trade as it sees fit, so should be able to buy and sell players and spend as much or as little as they see fit. There should however be one rule that applies to any club going bust that they lose their right to trade in the football business of Premier league or EFL. So spend what you want but if you go bust bye bye, some other club will step up at the bottom of the pyramid forcing one club up into whichever league the cancelled club came from.
Using Aski's example ..... So if we got promoted, & say, our turnover was only £30m in the Championship, does that mean that Manc et al are only able to spend 70% (or 85%) of £150m? Or does the guaranteed £89m get added to our £30m before the anchor is applied? (i.e. 70 or 85% of £119 x5 = £595). And how do we determine turnover if the financials are published after the season starts?
No WJ, City would be allowed to spend £503m ( based on 70% of their turnover of £718m). The spending limit is either 70% (or 85%) of a clubs turnover or the agreed "anchor limit" for that season, whichever is the lower. I would expect the "anchor limit" to be set based upon turnover + central fund payment, so in your example this would be set at £595m (being £119m x5) Thus any clubs that had turnover exceeding £850m (850m x 70 % = 595m) or £700m ( 700m x 85% = £595m) would be restricted by the "anchor limit" (again this presumes a x5 multiplier. A x4 multiplier would set the "anchor limit" to £476m and thus City on this occasion would be restricted to that figure instead of the PSR figure of £503m) The reason the Central Fund payment is included is if we decided to form WJ-Aski United and somehow immediately got promoted to the Premier League despite never having played a game, we would receive our share of the central fund and that would be our proposed turnover for the season, even before we sold tickets to the games and got sponsored by Wakey's Whippets as we played at the newly constructed Ellandback Park Stadium. The problem with trying to work out the exact details is that most explanations are a summary and thus don't go into the precise details. Because it's only a trial at present the F A haven't published full documentation so your questions may not be answerable until nearer the end of the season. Until then all we can do is guess, based on information from factual sources and opinion. Also the documentation on the UEFA site is over 600 pages, and contains far too many words and not enough meaningful numbers WARNING - The following contains numbers and maths and is also just an opinion As for determining turnover for the forthcoming season, I'm presuming it will be very similar to what clubs already do, in that they will be submitting financial forecasts, prior to the season starting and then also on a regular basis. Possibly the FA may say if your forecast for turnover is only 10% greater than the previous season, then its automatically approved, anything more than that will need to be clarified and individually approved. Luton's forecast might say that they expect their turnover to increase by 50% from £18m to £27m due to promotion before payment of the central fund, and the FA may find that an acceptable forecast. Another of the promoted clubs may say well we were in the EPL 2 seasons ago and got relegated, so we are basing our forecast on those figures, and again the FA may find that acceptable Newcastle may say they expect their turnover to increase from £250m to £750m, to which the FA responds that their turnover forecast is set at £275m until the club provides factual evidence for the substantial increase. Maybe they have just qualified for the Champions League, gained new club sponsors and sold the naming rights to St James Park as well as sold or are in the process of selling a number of players which makes the forecast legitimate. Alternatively the FA may not be convinced that Ahab The 2nd Hand Camel Seller really paid £500m to be the new shirt sponsor Obviously the above is a simplified opinion which no doubts has many flaws, and its virtually guaranteed that the F A will have some sort of system that no one will ever understand
The day will come when the most important 'new signing' of a club will not be a manager or players. It will be the accountant.
I'm more than happy to join Leeds on a 5 year contract for a signing on fee of £1m, and the measly sum of £10k per week. I'm not greedy
Too big a job for one person, I'll offer myself as your assistant , 50% of what your on, charged to the club not you. Don't forget to add in a release clause.
No release clause for me. I'm refusing all offers of a move. Don't want this lot on the forum having a go at me for moving to a better paid job
