Be interesting to see what the player contracts look like with these ridiculous transfer fees.
35M transfer. 10k a week contract
PSR Loopholes
- Thread starter Solius
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
35M transfer. 10k a week contract
I still feel there’s enough time left today for one last, massive piece of absolute footballing bullshit. Something obvious. Almost aggressively so.
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:
Don‘t you just love a good deadline day? September came early this year.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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
we have some of these, let's sell them for 50M, like Gore and Wheatly
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
We would probably have gotten i dunno, 15?I suppose he counts as homegrown though as he join Newcastle at 18?
Last edited:
Yeah, I am nor blaming Chelsea. Maatsen is a good player and I have no issues with the amount of his clause.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Just after they bought Douglas Luiz? Stinky.
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.
He was very highly thought of, quite interested to see how he does.
Oh Chelsea are definitely taking the piss with some of this stuff, I just think those two deals in particular were fair values.
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 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.