PSR Loopholes

These aren’t real valuations though, so it’s difficult to use them as a reference point or benchmark for future sales. Everyone knows the numbers are what they are to fudge with the books.
Be interesting to see what the player contracts look like with these ridiculous transfer fees.

35M transfer. 10k a week contract
 
Genuine question...what would people want the rules to be if they're unhappy about the swap deals? The two clubs to challenge the status quo in Newcastle and Villa are now two clubs that are needing to get involved in the shenanigans.

Keeping the rules as they are and removing these swap deals won't work unless all you want to do is give the big clubs protection from competition (as I think in the current state of rules it's near to impossible for smaller clubs to maintain a consistent challenge for top 4).

I think the only route is to completely reformat PSR.
Newcastle and Villa dont need to do anything to challenge the status quo. They both finished above united, liverpool will be weaker without klopp. Job done. Unless were talking about City who aren't the status quo, they're an abomination.
The entire premise of this red cartel just doesn't hold up to scrutiny. If 3 teams were holding the league hostage then the other 17 would vote to change the rules and that would be the end of that.
The fact is City, Newcastle, Villa and maybe one or two others want to change the rules for their own benefit and cant because the league cant be held to ransom by a cartel. This is what the crying and moaning is about.
And honestly if the league is tuned so heavily for historic, established clubs then whats going on at Everton? Are you just so shit that you cant succeed despite the rules being tuned in your favour or is the entire argument bullshit?
 
Newcastle and Villa dont need to do anything to challenge the status quo. They both finished above united, liverpool will be weaker without klopp. Job done. Unless were talking about City who aren't the status quo, they're an abomination.
The entire premise of this red cartel just doesn't hold up to scrutiny. If 3 teams were holding the league hostage then the other 17 would vote to change the rules and that would be the end of that.
The fact is City, Newcastle, Villa and maybe one or two others want to change the rules for their own benefit and cant because the league cant be held to ransom by a cartel. This is what the crying and moaning is about.
And honestly if the league is tuned so heavily for historic, established clubs then whats going on at Everton? Are you just so shit that you cant succeed despite the rules being tuned in your favour or is the entire argument bullshit?

They challenged and beat it and got top 4 by making transfers which has led them toeing the line with PSR. That's the point. They can't maintain that without doing these deals. That's the point. The system maintains the big clubs because they have the revenue streams to be in line with PSR without having to do these deals. I didn't say historic clubs, I'm talking about the big PL clubs or the big 6ish, the ones that bring in the bit revenue.
 
Last edited:
They challenged and beat it and got top 4 by making transfers which has led them toeing the line with PSR. That's the point. They can't maintain that without doing these deals. That's the point. The system maintains the big clubs because they have the revenue streams to be in line with PSR without having to do these deals. I didn't say historic clubs, I'm talking about the big PL clubs or the big 6ish, the ones that bring in the bit revenue.
Like us, like chelsea, i think arsenal have little room left to maneuver. Spurs have been hitting their limit despite selling Kane for 100m. Even a top 6 can be voted against anyway.
Tonali will be back for newcastle next season, they'll have less games to play, some of their academy players will be a year older (and if they're not producing academy players they can invest as much as they like there). Aston Villa had europa league games this season so the extra cl games aren't going to effect them, they've signed a LOT of players over recent seasons. Maybe a year of not spending wouldn't be the end of the world. They were a championship club 5 years ago, how quickly do they need to catch up?
I have a lot of sympathy for Everton at the moment. That seems a cash flow problem rather than a long term obstacle to you though. Honestly i'm not even sure i blame you for taking advantage of the rule in this case. It feels like very short term, cynical approach for clubs like Chelsea. For everton it buys you time and if you sort out the ownership / investment then you'll be ok. Getting completely rinsed for the few good players you have is crappy and i wouldn't take any joy in signing onana or brantwaithe at a budget price. I think the league should work with you to give you a bit of breathing space but i presume villa, chelsea etc, who dont really need it, kick up a fuss and demand the same so probably wont happen.
 
Like us, like chelsea, i think arsenal have little room left to maneuver. Spurs have been hitting their limit despite selling Kane for 100m. Even a top 6 can be voted against anyway.
Tonali will be back for newcastle next season, they'll have less games to play, some of their academy players will be a year older (and if they're not producing academy players they can invest as much as they like there). Aston Villa had europa league games this season so the extra cl games aren't going to effect them, they've signed a LOT of players over recent seasons. Maybe a year of not spending wouldn't be the end of the world. They were a championship club 5 years ago, how quickly do they need to catch up?
I have a lot of sympathy for Everton at the moment. That seems a cash flow problem rather than a long term obstacle to you though. Honestly i'm not even sure i blame you for taking advantage of the rule in this case. It feels like very short term, cynical approach for clubs like Chelsea. For everton it buys you time and if you sort out the ownership / investment then you'll be ok. Getting completely rinsed for the few good players you have is crappy and i wouldn't take any joy in signing onana or brantwaithe at a budget price. I think the league should work with you to give you a bit of breathing space but i presume villa, chelsea etc, who dont really need it, kick up a fuss and demand the same so probably wont happen.

I'm not even talking about Everton. The only reason you and Chelsea are toeing a line is because of spending obscene amounts of money, especially in respect of Chelsea, otherwise they'd be fine due to their revenue stream aswell as the ownership.

It's fine for United et al. to be against clubs spending whatever they want because they're at the top and don't want to let go anymore of that but most clubs in the PL have owners now that are capable of supporting a club and spending big each summer but are restricted from doing so because of the rules...rules which impact and restrict smaller clubs more than bigger ones.
 
I'm not even talking about Everton. The only reason you and Chelsea are toeing a line is because of spending obscene amounts of money, especially in respect of Chelsea, otherwise they'd be fine due to their revenue stream aswell as the ownership.

It's fine for United et al. to be against clubs spending whatever they want because they're at the top and don't want to let go anymore of that but most clubs in the PL have owners now that are capable of supporting a club and spending big each summer but are restricted from doing so because of the rules...rules which impact and restrict smaller clubs more than bigger ones.
I'm fine with our spending being anchored against Ipswich or Luton or whatever. I accept its probably not especially common for a United supporter and your right about some of us. But not all.
The only reason Newcastle need to toe the line is because of spending obscene amounts of money too. I think they're spending is much the same as ours and its worth bearing in mind that were completely hopeless at both buying and selling players. Chelsea are a bit of an aberration i dont want to defend them.
I'm fine with sustainability rules. I think leeds are too good an example of letting owners spend beyond a clubs means. You could change the rules for them to put the full cost in escrow like @adexkola has proposed a few times. But i think the idea that giving Saudi Arabia free reign to invest as much as they like helping the competitiveness of the league to be a completely mental viewpoint. I'd rather anchoring.
 
Last edited:
The phrase “separate move” being used a lot the last few days. Thou doth protest too much.
 
I'm fine with our spending being anchored against Ipswich or Luton or whatever. I accept its probably not especially common for a United supporter and your right about some of us. But not all.
The only reason Newcastle need to toe the line is because of spending obscene amounts of money too. I think they're spending is much the same as ours and its worth bearing in mind that were completely hopeless at both buying and selling players. Chelsea are a bit of an aberration i dont want to defend them.
I'm fine with sustainability rules. I think leeds are too good an example of letting owners spend beyond a clubs means. You could change the rules for them to put the full cost in escrow like @adexkola has proposed a few times. But i think the idea that giving Saudi Arabia free reign to invest as much as they like helping the competitiveness of the league to be a completely mental viewpoint. I'd rather anchoring.

It doesn't matter if it's Saudi or a local bloke in charge of Newcastle with the same money. The rules would still block them.
 
It doesn't matter if it's Saudi or a local bloke in charge of Newcastle with the same money. The rules would still block them.
I dont particularly care where the money is coming from. Its the scale of the money. If a local bloke from newcastle had 700 billion I'd want the rules to limit his investment.
 
I dont particularly care where the money is coming from. Its the scale of the money. If a local bloke from newcastle had 700 billion I'd want the rules to limit his investment.

Sure, but the current rules of limiting that investment help the traditional PL big clubs including yourselves. Hence why I think they need to change or people should stop moaning about these deals.
 
The phrase “separate move” being used a lot the last few days. Thou doth protest too much.
It is a farce.
Team A sells player X to team B while, in a totally different transaction, Team B sells player Y to Team A.
On the last day that counts for PSR purposes.
If you are using the loophole at least admit it.
 
It is a farce.
Team A sells player X to team B while, in a totally different transaction, Team B sells player Y to Team A.
On the last day that counts for PSR purposes.
If you are using the loophole at least admit it.

It’s technically accurate to say it’s a totally separate transaction, but in reality we all know these clubs are swapping players to fudge the books, though I’m not sure the Maatsen sale or the Dewsbury-Hall signing fall into this category but generally the swapping of random academy players it’s exactly that, just blatantly and openly exploiting a loophole.
 
Sure, but the current rules of limiting that investment help the traditional PL big clubs including yourselves. Hence why I think they need to change or people should stop moaning about these deals.
Its helping everyone except Newcastle. Thats why its very easy to get 14 teams to vote for it.
Try and find a proposal that works for 14 teams and it'll pass. Throw a hissy fit and bend and break the rules in a blatant way and the league will just update the rules.
 
academy kids going for 30m!!

we have some of these, let's sell them for 50M, like Gore and Wheatly
 
Its helping everyone except Newcastle. Thats why its very easy to get 14 teams to vote for it.
Try and find a proposal that works for 14 teams and it'll pass. Throw a hissy fit and bend and break the rules in a blatant way and the league will just update the rules.

It's helping every PL club, not every club. FFP/PSR locks clubs into place, making it much harder to both improve and decline from where a club is at.

Of course it's easy to get 14 teams to vote on rules that help them secure their very financially lucrative position. Look at the Wrexham thread, for instance. What's happening there is pretty well received, both on Refcafe and in general. They're doing a City/Chelsea/Villa/whatever, but in a league that doesn't have these rules. They're leapfrogging other clubs because of outside investment. PL clubs don't want that to be possible, so they've removed that risk.

These rules make it much harder for mid table PL clubs to challenge the top. At the same time, it lessens the risk of these very same clubs getting challenged by the bottom. For the teams struggling on the lower end of the league, the rules makes it much less likely for them to be usurped by a Championship club.

The "cartel" isn't the top 4, or the red clubs, or whatever. It's the PL. PL clubs without outside investment are for these rules because they benefit them. The PL clubs with outside investment are against these rules because they hurt them. It's all self interest.

United are now against rules restricting shared ownership of clubs, because after the takeover these rules now hurt them. The same exact thing would happen with FFP/PSR if United started getting sizable outside investment, and fans would largely follow.
 
Newcastle player Minteh joining Brighton for 39m. No way Feyenoord would have been able to sell him for that much @KirkDuyt
I love Minteh, but 39 million is just silly :lol: We would probably have gotten i dunno, 15?

I suppose he counts as homegrown though as he join Newcastle at 18?
 
Last edited:
It’s technically accurate to say it’s a totally separate transaction, but in reality we all know these clubs are swapping players to fudge the books, though I’m not sure the Maatsen sale or the Dewsbury-Hall signing fall into this category but generally the swapping of random academy players it’s exactly that, just blatantly and openly exploiting a loophole.
Yeah, I am nor blaming Chelsea. Maatsen is a good player and I have no issues with the amount of his clause.
 
Juve nicked Iling-Junior from Chelsea a few years ago when he was 16 (he was at Chelsea from 8 to 16).

He was very highly thought of, quite interested to see how he does.
 
Yeah, I am nor blaming Chelsea. Maatsen is a good player and I have no issues with the amount of his clause.

Oh Chelsea are definitely taking the piss with some of this stuff, I just think those two deals in particular were fair values.
 
It's helping every PL club, not every club. FFP/PSR locks clubs into place, making it much harder to both improve and decline from where a club is at.

Of course it's easy to get 14 teams to vote on rules that help them secure their very financially lucrative position. Look at the Wrexham thread, for instance. What's happening there is pretty well received, both on Refcafe and in general. They're doing a City/Chelsea/Villa/whatever, but in a league that doesn't have these rules. They're leapfrogging other clubs because of outside investment. PL clubs don't want that to be possible, so they've removed that risk.

These rules make it much harder for mid table PL clubs to challenge the top. At the same time, it lessens the risk of these very same clubs getting challenged by the bottom. For the teams struggling on the lower end of the league, the rules makes it much less likely for them to be usurped by a Championship club.

The "cartel" isn't the top 4, or the red clubs, or whatever. It's the PL. PL clubs without outside investment are for these rules because they benefit them. The PL clubs with outside investment are against these rules because they hurt them. It's all self interest.

United are now against rules restricting shared ownership of clubs, because after the takeover these rules now hurt them. The same exact thing would happen with FFP/PSR if United started getting sizable outside investment, and fans would largely follow.
Yeah i'd agree with all that. I think the likes of Crystal Palace and Fulham are where the real power and decision making lie simply because theres a dozen clubs very like them. With Arsenal and Liverpool we've got a good start towards rejecting proposals but we cant implement anything without them mid table clubs.
I think historically the distribution within the league is quite good, particularly compared to la liga for instance but how much is being funneled down to Football League clubs is insufficient and its becoming a real problem for newly promoted teams.
Beyond that im fine with how the league operates. I dont think i agree it makes it much harder for mid table teams. It removes some volatility, they wont be jumping from relegation fights to champions league immediately but i think theres opportunity for the likes of Spurs or even Leicester to close the gap and compete.
I don't think the league has always been ruled by self interest. I think there was a time us, liverpool and arsenal could have held the league to ransom and gotten a Barcelona / Real Madrid kind of deal but i think we actually made a good decision in recognising theres was value in the wider league. Its turned in recent years and its very focused on self interest but i have hope that that could be turned around.
 
I'm fine with our spending being anchored against Ipswich or Luton or whatever. I accept its probably not especially common for a United supporter and your right about some of us. But not all.
The only reason Newcastle need to toe the line is because of spending obscene amounts of money too. I think they're spending is much the same as ours and its worth bearing in mind that were completely hopeless at both buying and selling players. Chelsea are a bit of an aberration i dont want to defend them.
I'm fine with sustainability rules. I think leeds are too good an example of letting owners spend beyond a clubs means. You could change the rules for them to put the full cost in escrow like @adexkola has proposed a few times. But i think the idea that giving Saudi Arabia free reign to invest as much as they like helping the competitiveness of the league to be a completely mental viewpoint. I'd rather anchoring.

I was a proponent of establishing money to be used for the club in escrow or some other way for a long time.

The real difficulty with this is one faced by a completely unrelated entity: NASCAR.

NASCAR doesn’t have franchises. If you sink all your money into a 2 or 3 car team and they aren’t making g the cuts for races and losing sponsors…. Or things just drop off: then the team Itself has no value. You can try to sell off the equipment, warehouses, land and such, but the team. Itself is worth nothing.

Because of the way relegation works, football in Europe faces a similar issue. The very worst NFL brand is worth a massive (and stable) amount of money.

A PL team can fall from grace and spiral into being worth 1 pound plus any debt taken on in a heartbeat. And that can happen even with PSR.

Want to really change it? Go with something closer to the NBA model; where there is a luxury tax that goes up in tiers once you go above a certain spending cap. At one point the Golden State Warriors were paying 4 dollars to the league for every extra dollar they went over.

The extra money from the luxury tax would go to a pool distributed to every team that is not over the soft spending cap and having to contribute to the tax itself.

People will be like “well Saudi would just spend 5 billion a year on players … they are worth infinite money”

Well, just because they have that money, does t mean they want to spend it all on a team.

You can only field 11 players at a time regardless of what you spend.

I don’t actually think they want to bulldoze the league financially anyway, because they are trying to repair Bin Salman’s image by owning a tradition rich team, not reinforce it.

And every pound overspent will go to making the entire PL wealthier, and thus aid in fending of challenges to the league structures we love that WILL be manifesting themselves over the next decade.
 


That's a new one.

It’s not , really. There were tons of articles about this I. Publications like Bloombergs months ago.

We didn’t “sell the women’s team”

and the buyer of the stake in the women’s team wasn’t part of our investment group; at least the original two interested parties weren’t. I know Mercury 13, the group that owns Como FC was one of the parties)

The total valuation of our women’s team, by Independent outfits, averaged out to around 200m

So glad the Gen Z internet reporter could help out with the “Breaking News” though ….
 
200m for Chelsea Women's team, you'd buy half the PL teams for that no?
 
200m for Chelsea Women's team, you'd buy half the PL teams for that no?

Southampton's 2022 takeover was £100m for an 80% share valuing the whole club at £125m. Don't know about half, but you'd probably be able to buy at least some of them.
 
Last edited:
Newcastle United had a higher average attendance when they were playing in the Championship, than Chelseas men and womens teams combined have ever achieved - yet their entire club sold for £300m. Now everyone's just nodding and saying "this is fine" while Chelsea sell their womens team for £200m?

We should announce that we've sold Bruno Fernandes to ourselves for £500m.
 
Newcastle United had a higher average attendance when they were playing in the Championship, than Chelseas men and womens teams combined have ever achieved - yet their entire club sold for £300m. Now everyone's just nodding and saying "this is fine" while Chelsea sell their womens team for £200m?

We should announce that we've sold Bruno Fernandes to ourselves for £500m.

Chelsea didn’t sell the women’s team. Are people even capable of using Google?

What we announced and did is actually remarkable.

If someone wants to invest in Chelsea women or Man United Women (any WSL team) they have to make a deal with the men’s team and hope it goes the way they want. The women’s teams are set up as property of the men’s team.


Chelsea announced on 5/29 that they would be shifting ownership of the women’s team from Chelsea FC to the same ownership group as the men, essentially putting them on equal footing.

They then set up a sale of a partial share of the women’s team for 11m. Ironically to the purposes of this post, I do not believe any of that money goes towards the men’s FFP now. It is investment for the women.
 
Newcastle United had a higher average attendance when they were playing in the Championship, than Chelseas men and womens teams combined have ever achieved - yet their entire club sold for £300m. Now everyone's just nodding and saying "this is fine" while Chelsea sell their womens team for £200m?

We should announce that we've sold Bruno Fernandes to ourselves for £500m.
Sorry your feelings are hurt that no one cares about Newcastle … I don’t know what to tell you.

The evaluation of Chelsea’s Women’s team was done by external banking and finance entities. BDT and MSD partners to be specific .
 
What do Chelsea FC as a club gain by doing that ? Surely there's something worth it outside of those meager 11m.
 
What do Chelsea FC as a club gain by doing that ? Surely there's something worth it outside of those meager 11m.
Setting the standard for women’s teams getting more equal status? They are very proud of their women’s team. And for the women’s team 11m isnt too meager, and they create another investing partner avenue.
 
Sorry your feelings are hurt that no one cares about Newcastle … I don’t know what to tell you.

The evaluation of Chelsea’s Women’s team was done by external banking and finance entities. BDT and MSD partners to be specific .

Do want to reply to my post a few more times to show whose feelings are hurt?

Why would I care about Newcastle? I’m just pointing out the ridiculousness of your scummy little clubs latest little escapade in attempting to game the system.

If it isn’t looking for financial loopholes, it’s farming young talent to sell and pay off your bills. I don’t blame ye for being in denial - I’d hate to follow a club that acted like this.
 
Do want to reply to my post a few more times to show whose feelings are hurt?

Why would I care about Newcastle? I’m just pointing out the ridiculousness of your scummy little clubs latest little escapade in attempting to game the system.

If it isn’t looking for financial loopholes, it’s farming young talent to sell and pay off your bills. I don’t blame ye for being in denial - I’d hate to follow a club that acted like this.
I did reply to your post. I even pointed out the entities that helped with the valuation.

you DIDNT reply to my post.

Where our scummy little club , that sold for billions (despite having lower attendance figures than Newcastle … I’m not even going to bother liking this up except to say that I do know Chelsea he really falls I the top 3 of match day revenue … and the idea that attendance is the main value of a sporting brand anymore is quaint and outdated)…

Did something very good for women’s football. The original news source saw the shift in ownership and the 11m the women’s team to in in investment and jumped to a conclusion with no footwork.

Chelsea can’t take complete credit for this though. They are apparently following the model of Lyon.

Btw, Angel City of the NWSL (an American women’s team) fundraises of a valuation of 144 m pounds … for reference.
 
I did reply to your post. I even pointed out the entities that helped with the valuation.

you DIDNT reply to my post.

Where our scummy little club , that sold for billions (despite having lower attendance figures than Newcastle … I’m not even going to bother liking this up except to say that I do know Chelsea he really falls I the top 3 of match day revenue … and the idea that attendance is the main value of a sporting brand anymore is quaint and outdated)…

Did something very good for women’s football. The original news source saw the shift in ownership and the 11m the women’s team to in in investment and jumped to a conclusion with no footwork.

Chelsea can’t take complete credit for this though. They are apparently following the model of Lyon.

Btw, Angel City of the NWSL (an American women’s team) fundraises of a valuation of 144 m pounds … for reference.

I know you replied to it. Felt like you replied 15 times while telling me how hurt my feelings were.

You need to stop telling lies. Chelsea does not fall into the top 3 clubs for matchday revenue. You might be third in the PL for how much revenue you receive per fan, but you only have the 9th biggest stadium so that isn’t the same thing.

As for thinking your owners aren’t cooking the books but doing what’s in the best interest of the women’s game? If you truly believe that you’re a bigger fool than I thought.
 
I know you replied to it. Felt like you replied 15 times while telling me how hurt my feelings were.

You need to stop telling lies. Chelsea does not fall into the top 3 clubs for matchday revenue. You might be third in the PL for how much revenue you receive per fan, but you only have the 9th biggest stadium so that isn’t the same thing.

As for thinking your owners aren’t cooking the books but doing what’s in the best interest of the women’s game? If you truly believe that you’re a bigger fool than I thought.
You know what, with Tottenham opening their new stadium we fell to 4th. We WERE third, and sometimes second. The primary factor that we have one of the highest spends per attendee.

You know that making the women’s team Independent actually takes away from PSR credits, right?

Of course you knew that. You’re feelings dont seem hurt at all. My mistake.