Posts: 11,834
Threads: 16
Joined: Jun 2018
Reputation:
113
It does feel like the media narrative is:
Plucky little Forest had a good go this season but luckily the Sky 6 spent enough money to see them over the line and thankfully we’ve got Villa out of the Champions League too. Phew, that was close everyone, lets not let these upstarts get a look in next season eh? Now how can we bend the rules to ensure the rightful place of our favourites next year too including good ol’ Man Utd.
Posts: 179
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2025
Reputation:
7
Location: Derby
Not keen on Bournemouth, but if I could choose only one of the existing 17 to go down and it be realistic, so not Liverpool. It'd be Brentford for me, can't stand them.
Posts: 274
Threads: 0
Joined: Aug 2018
Reputation:
6
(04-06-2025, 02:03 PM)JohnG Wrote: Not keen on Bournemouth, but if I could choose only one of the existing 17 to go down and it be realistic, so not Liverpool. It'd be Brentford for me, can't stand them.
If they went down with the best XG in the league that would be even funnier.
Posts: 2,686
Threads: 1
Joined: Jun 2018
Reputation:
18
We may as well scrap PSR. It’s over. Clubs voted against changing the rules for selling assets to sister companies. Now we are going to see numerous clubs doing the same thing as Chelsea.
Posts: 4,126
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2018
Reputation:
23
Just means we can set up a company and sell the women’s team to it surely? If we need it
Posts: 10,839
Threads: 56
Joined: Jun 2018
Reputation:
59
(04-06-2025, 08:30 PM)The reds Wrote: We may as well scrap PSR. It’s over. Clubs voted against changing the rules for selling assets to sister companies. Now we are going to see numerous clubs doing the same thing as Chelsea.
Can't believe they voted against this. I already don't understand why anyone else is following the rules after what Chelsea have done.
Posts: 11,834
Threads: 16
Joined: Jun 2018
Reputation:
113
The Athletic have published PSR estimates for season 24/25. They reckon Forest will come in a healthy £85m under the 3 year limit so plenty headroom as we suspected.
Only Villa in trouble with an estimated-£15m and need a sale.
Chelsea, Man City and Tottenham you ask? Well just the £300m under for them. Even Man utd £141m under. Nothing remotely suspect about this, move along now.
These rules are totally and utterly unfit for purpose.
Posts: 12,168
Threads: 39
Joined: May 2018
Reputation:
67
(05-06-2025, 11:32 AM)Salvatore Matrecano Wrote: The Athletic have published PSR estimates for season 24/25. They reckon Forest will come in a healthy £85m under the 3 year limit so plenty headroom as we suspected.
Only Villa in trouble with an estimated-£15m and need a sale.
Chelsea, Man City and Tottenham you ask? Well just the £300m under for them. Even Man utd £141m under. Nothing remotely suspect about this, move along now.
These rules are totally and utterly unfit for purpose.
I read that - what an absolute farce. Around Man U in particular - where PSR is calculated using a holding company's account.
Posts: 12,168
Threads: 39
Joined: May 2018
Reputation:
67
Man U who have just had a £55m (£45m + £10m add-ons) bid rejected for Mbuemo.
Posts: 10,839
Threads: 56
Joined: Jun 2018
Reputation:
59
(05-06-2025, 11:54 AM)Sausage Roll Wrote: (05-06-2025, 11:32 AM)Salvatore Matrecano Wrote: The Athletic have published PSR estimates for season 24/25. They reckon Forest will come in a healthy £85m under the 3 year limit so plenty headroom as we suspected.
Only Villa in trouble with an estimated-£15m and need a sale.
Chelsea, Man City and Tottenham you ask? Well just the £300m under for them. Even Man utd £141m under. Nothing remotely suspect about this, move along now.
These rules are totally and utterly unfit for purpose.
I read that - what an absolute farce. Around Man U in particular - where PSR is calculated using a holding company's account.
I just can't believe everyone didn't vote to adjust the rules to cater for the Chelsea (/Derby) loophole. Makes you wonder why every team isn't just doing that right now if you can get away with it. Just seems ridiculous to me.
In defence of rules in general, they do (vaguely) stop Man City and Newcastle spending State unlimited money. Also, we did just have a 7 team race for the Champions League, including a team that previously finished 17th. Whilst Man Utd/Spurs languished in the relegation battle. So they do seem to have had some positive results, whether that is due to the rules or just the sheer amount of PL money is harder to tell.
Posts: 2,686
Threads: 1
Joined: Jun 2018
Reputation:
18
(05-06-2025, 11:32 AM)Salvatore Matrecano Wrote: The Athletic have published PSR estimates for season 24/25. They reckon Forest will come in a healthy £85m under the 3 year limit so plenty headroom as we suspected.
Only Villa in trouble with an estimated-£15m and need a sale.
Chelsea, Man City and Tottenham you ask? Well just the £300m under for them. Even Man utd £141m under. Nothing remotely suspect about this, move along now.
These rules are totally and utterly unfit for purpose.
I don't think that is what it means. I think it means we could lose up to £85m and still be fine but with the £34m extra in prize money we should be well below that figure. Danilo's sale will improve our position as well.
Posts: 11,834
Threads: 12
Joined: May 2018
Reputation:
83
(05-06-2025, 02:18 PM)wassy04 Wrote: (05-06-2025, 11:54 AM)Sausage Roll Wrote: (05-06-2025, 11:32 AM)Salvatore Matrecano Wrote: The Athletic have published PSR estimates for season 24/25. They reckon Forest will come in a healthy £85m under the 3 year limit so plenty headroom as we suspected.
Only Villa in trouble with an estimated-£15m and need a sale.
Chelsea, Man City and Tottenham you ask? Well just the £300m under for them. Even Man utd £141m under. Nothing remotely suspect about this, move along now.
These rules are totally and utterly unfit for purpose.
I read that - what an absolute farce. Around Man U in particular - where PSR is calculated using a holding company's account.
I just can't believe everyone didn't vote to adjust the rules to cater for the Chelsea (/Derby) loophole. Makes you wonder why every team isn't just doing that right now if you can get away with it. Just seems ridiculous to me.
In defence of rules in general, they do (vaguely) stop Man City and Newcastle spending State unlimited money. Also, we did just have a 7 team race for the Champions League, including a team that previously finished 17th. Whilst Man Utd/Spurs languished in the relegation battle. So they do seem to have had some positive results, whether that is due to the rules or just the sheer amount of PL money is harder to tell.
I think what's happening is that firstly the psr rules post Everton/Forest are really biting average clubs now and making their life uncomfortable. It's ok voting for strict and tough psr rules but when the psr pressures arrive on your own doorstep then your mindset changes and you don't care if the big boys are taking the piss because your're not in direct competition with them anyway. You just look after yourself and don't want to be the next Everton, Forest, Leicester.
Secondly, I suspect the prem as a whole took the view that clubs doing their dodges by agreeing to sell each other players for overinflated prices was a really unedifying spectacle and damaging the premier league brand, as was points deductions, legal apeals affecting relegation places etc.
And lastly, the legal costs to prosecute all these psr cases are bourne by all of the prem clubs collectivley. Recently they've had Everton x2, us, Leicester and, most significantly, the Man City 115 charges where in that case the prem are charging a nation state who have infinate resource. The legal bill for that lot must run into multiple tens of millions of pounds and each and every club is having to fund that. Again, a lower prem club isnt going to give a shit about Chelsea or Man City's shenanigans because they're running a different race to them but still having to fund the legals agaisnt them.
This is why we need a football regulator. Prem clubs will only look after themselves. They dont give a shit about anything other.
|
