New Financial Fair Play Rules

[superpull]

Is my understanding correct that clubs can just pay a fine to UEFA if they sit above the 70%?

If this is known and understood to be an acceptable practice, surely the premier league should just follow the 70% principle overall but make more allowances for the bottom end of the league.

Would make the league more interesting if it was actually viewed as a sporting competition rather than a free market oligopoly.

That's just for the "handover" period. So you get a few years to get your shit together and it's just a fine if you go over a little bit.
Punishment linked to how much you go over is the plan going forward.

@777Kidnappings , i actually think these rules may be significantly worse for us as things stand.

From the 23/24 accounts:
£186.9m turnover
£221.1m Squad Costs (made up of £156.6 staff and player costs plus £64.5m Amortisation. I dont think these figures include agent fees i think, which should also count towards it).

That's a £34.2m loss (although the two figures above don't directly translate. It's not a bad rule of thumb). All good in PSR land.

In the new system, that's a 118.3% overspend however.
Not only would we not have any room for transfer fees - but we are 3% over the absolute red limit that incurs points deductions. (80%-115% is a "green" limit).

Bramley Moore and the debt refinancing needs to be lifting that £186.9m figure dramatically

[superpull]

However, me and AI think the stadium, improving in the league by 4 or 5 positions (and getting on TV an extra handful of times) increases turnover to the £270m range.
Combined with the work we have done to reduce the wages last summer then squad costs look like they may be as low as £180m.

Which gives us....
£36m to spend again

[Cereal Killer]

However, me and AI think the stadium, improving in the league by 4 or 5 positions (and getting on TV an extra handful of times) increases turnover to the £270m range.
Combined with the work we have done to reduce the wages last summer then squad costs look like they may be as low as £180m.

Which gives us....
£36m to spend again

Plus whatever amoritisation we’re paying off, if we’re paying £20m a year, we can keep that consistent, so that would make £56m?

[superpull]

Plus whatever amoritisation we’re paying off, if we’re paying £20m a year, we can keep that consistent, so that would make £56m?

Yeah. Only problem with that is how little we spent for quite a few years.
But, I suppose - lower amortisation means less squad cost