https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/cy982zd1e7joPSR or mismanagement? Villa face harsh financial reality
This is another, alternative take on PSR/SCR
But the Observer and BBC pieces both miss the point entirely.
Chelsea and City were able to rack up huge owner funded losses whilst they built themselves up to become the cash generative businesses that we see today.
Villa and Toon are being denied that opportunity.
Had PSR/SCR existed before Abramovich and Sheikh Mansour got involved then City and Chelsea would never have been as successful as they have been.
Under Abramovich, Chelsea lost an average of £900k A WEEK for 19 years.
£889.2m INTOTAL
He bought Chelsea in 2003.
PSR was introduced in 2013-4.
Sheikh Mansour took over City in 2008. They made losses of £479.4m in the first 3 seasons (compare that to the current £105m PSR limit) and have benefitted from "bogus" sponsorships to balance the books. But more recently selling Academy products has helped their numbers.
And Spurs are trying to get around it due to relatively unique circumstances - building a new stadium which doesn't count for PSR/SCR - and leveraging the stadium in London to generate revenue in the off season.
We are trying to do the same but are hamstrung by poor infrastructure (which bedevils every city outside London).
And the difficulty in getting sufficient numbers of punters/tourists to pay top dollar for middling quality food and wine in hospitality.
All we're asking for is the same opportunity/level playing field that existed pre-Abramovich/Mansour.
PSR has stopped losses, but stifled ambition and cemented the cartel's dominance.
If football fair, with performances and results being rewarded, , then Spurs and United would have been handicapped in the transfer market. Instead Villa and Toon are screwed because of how the rules have been written.
