FFP

[AV82EC]

Practically speaking, I think this was part of the reason the club would rather sell Malen for £20-odd-million, than Bogarde for about the same. That’s not to say we wouldn’t do both if the opportunity arises, just that when given a choice, under SCR, the big earner is the wiser financial option.

This.

I think it will take a while for supporters (not just us, all across the league) to come to terms with 'good' players more likely to be sold - they're contributing on the pitch, but they also make up a bigger chunk of the wage cost and thus make more of an impact on the bottom line than young inexperienced players.

Also, I'm pretty sure people will still be calling it PSR in 5 years time. We are slow to learn.

Maybe changing the thread title to SCR may help with education. As someone has mentioned before “it’s making my teeth itch”.

[Dave]

Also, I'm pretty sure people will still be calling it PSR in 5 years time. We are slow to learn.

Think a lot of people have only just moved on to that from FFP (see thread title)

[eamonn]

Folk's use of "the Premiership" was only finally phased-out on NYE 2025.

[Dave]

Incorrect

A good season for Swindon, Stockport, or whoever is no endorsement that they’ll make it in the Premiership.

Absolutely no way can a modern Premiership side go 2 transfer windows without strengthening the squad

[Toronto Villa]

[DB]

https://x.com/villarich1982/status/2013707531818840547?s=20

Apologies if already shared. A frustrating place we are in so the 'top' clubs can carry on as they wish.

[Toronto Villa]

And then you have this complete fucking idiot. I present you Mr Martin Keown letting everyone know Man City’s squad isn’t aren’t enough after their defeat earlier.

https://x.com/footballontnt/status/2013745758961311972?s=46

[DB]

Jeez. If football continues to be a closed shop, how long before owners decide, what's the point. Fans too over time.

[Smithy]

I've said this before, but if FFP/PSR/SCR is GENUINELY about protecting the long term financial viability of a club, and preventing situations where they can go bust like Portsmouth did, then surely it's very easily fixed for clubs who want to invest? Just make the owners/investors put the cash in.  If they want to sign a player for £50m, and give him a £25m contract? That's fine - but you need to put £75m into the club up front so those costs are covered if the worst happens. 

Not a loan, some clever financial instrument, but cold, hard cash that can cover those liabilities if the owner gets knocked down by a bus tomorrow.  There is no "risk" to the club from overspending if the costs are already covered and the money is in the bank to cover all liabilities.

Now, there might be some sort of cap placed on that type of spending, to stop a club spending a billion quid in one window, and that's fine - but that becomes a DIFFERENT discussion.  It's no longer about a club's financial viability, it's then about one club distorting the entire market - but at least the correct conversations will start being had.

[Percy McCarthy]

^^ But it’s not about sustainability. And the rules are voted on by the clubs in their own self-interest, be they the Greedy 6, or clubs who want to stay clear of the bottom three.

We’ve just got to get on with it, and the owners have to find ways to pump their/other peoples’ money into the club, plus raise legitimate revenue.

I don’t see the point of coming on here or twitter and just saying ‘it ay fair’ over and over again.

[Drummond]

I just typed out a big response, tweaked it and then just can't be arsed. There's no point moaning, because it's not changing anytime soon.

[ChicagoLion]

If it was to stop clubs going bust then they would be using completely different Financial Covenants to do that. They have invented a set of rules to serve a different purpose.

[VILLA MOLE]

If it was to stop clubs going bust then they would be using completely different Financial Covenants to do that. They have invented a set of rules to serve a different purpose.

Yes I thought it was so clubs dont get saddled with debt ?  who the fuckty fuckty fuck are Man United ??

[aev]

There are obviously 6 in England that don't want anyone crashing their party, as well as a fair few others that are also happy to play along and have rules in place that restrict what they can do.

The European stuff is presumably to simply stop more English clubs becoming more powerful in Europe.

There are loads of other tweaks to controls that would make sense, use of Escrow accounts, debt controls etc that would make it more competitive. There are probably only a handful clubs that would be interested in that.

I honestly can't see how things change.

If I didn't have 2 boys that are Villa crazy I'd probably cancel Sky and BT and find something else to occupy my weekends.

[ChicagoLion]

If it was to stop clubs going bust then they would be using completely different Financial Covenants to do that. They have invented a set of rules to serve a different purpose.

Yes I thought it was so clubs dont get saddled with debt ?  who the fuckty fuckty fuck are Man United ??

Of course that would be too obvious and the most used restriction that Banks place on business - Leverage/Gearing.
It’s also the method used by regulators on Banks.