The NSNO Everton Forums

All the PSR bods have got some new homework to do.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/ar ... keyj71m36o

Probably telling that those clubs which are more financially savvy (Bournemouth, Brighton, Brentford, Palace) voted against this change…

Cereal Killer wrote: ↑Fri Nov 21, 2025 1:40 pm Probably telling that those clubs which are more financially savvy (Bournemouth, Brighton, Brentford, Palace) voted against this change…

Or clubs that would struggle if other teams can start spending more money...

Shogun wrote: ↑Fri Nov 21, 2025 1:42 pm Or clubs that would struggle if other teams can start spending more money...

Yeah, I would think the six that voted against are more likely Man Utd, City, Liverpool, Chelsea etc

Gash wrote: ↑Fri Nov 21, 2025 1:53 pm Yeah, I would think the six that voted against are more likely Man Utd, City, Liverpool, Chelsea etc

Bournemouth, Brentford, Brighton, Crystal Palace, Fulham and Leeds voted against the change

I suppose none of them can really go and blow a load of extra cash anyway

Cereal Killer wrote: ↑Fri Nov 21, 2025 2:49 pm Bournemouth, Brentford, Brighton, Crystal Palace, Fulham and Leeds voted against the change

I suppose none of them can really go and blow a load of extra cash anyway

Surprised at that, I thought the ones who had happily cooked the current system would have been against any change.

Gash wrote: ↑Fri Nov 21, 2025 2:55 pm Surprised at that, I thought the ones who had happily cooked the current system would have been against any change.

Oh the new rules are different level for them!

Previous was £115m losses over 3 years?

New rules 85% of revenue on “squad costs”

So Man City last revenue was £715m, 85% is £607m, they spend reportedly £220m a season on wages, that leaves them easily over £300m to lash on transfers every season without having to sell anyone to balance the books

Cereal Killer wrote: ↑Fri Nov 21, 2025 3:43 pm Oh the new rules are different level for them!

Previous was £115m losses over 3 years?

New rules 85% of revenue on “squad costs”

So Man City last revenue was £715m, 85% is £607m, they spend reportedly £220m a season on wages, that leaves them easily over £300m to lash on transfers every season without having to sell anyone to balance the books

Is that significantly more than the previous system though

Cereal Killer wrote: ↑Fri Nov 21, 2025 2:49 pm Bournemouth, Brentford, Brighton, Crystal Palace, Fulham and Leeds voted against the change

I suppose none of them can really go and blow a load of extra cash anyway

From the BBC article:
https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/arti ... keyj71m36o

But linking the wage bill to income is not attractive to clubs with less financial resources.

That is why Bournemouth, Brentford, Brighton, Crystal Palace, Fulham and Leeds voted against.

Bournemouth's ground holds just over 11,000 but they need to pay Premier League wages so could be one of the losers, and it is a similar situation for Fulham.

----------------------

As with all these measures, it just reads to me like they're still in the business of putting a ceiling on certain clubs and allowing the biggest clubs already to keep getting bigger.

This is a step in the right direction though, because it brings clubs (that have money) closer to the 'big 6'.

Like those 6 who voted against clubs have mostly all done brilliantly but all it's done for the likes of Brighton, Bournemouth and Palace is allow them to overtake the rest of the other 14 clubs. None of them have the likes of Man City, Liverpool or Chelsea worried.

Genuine clubs that could bring a fight to that level, for better or worse, like Aston Villa and Newcastle are stifled by the current rules. Sounds like this frees them up a little bit.

I dont really understand what's the great difference between 85% of turnover and losing 35m year. Would we lose significantly more than 35m a year if we spent 85% of turnover on wages and transfers

Shogun wrote: ↑Fri Nov 21, 2025 7:03 pm This is a step in the right direction though, because it brings clubs (that have money) closer to the 'big 6'.

Like those 6 who voted against clubs have mostly all done brilliantly but all it's done for the likes of Brighton, Bournemouth and Palace is allow them to overtake the rest of the other 14 clubs. None of them have the likes of Man City, Liverpool or Chelsea worried.

Genuine clubs that could bring a fight to that level, for better or worse, like Aston Villa and Newcastle are stifled by the current rules. Sounds like this frees them up a little bit.

Does it significantly free them up? Both clubs have been butting into the 70% cap from UEFA if they want to be in Europe.

I can see why it's a good thing for say a club like Villa who probably have bigger revenue than some of the newer up and comers like Bournemouth and Brighton to keep those teams at arms length. I'm just doubtful it helps them bridge the gap any further to the biggest teams as when talking about percentages it seemingly plays into those bigger team's favour given their enormous revenues.

blueToffee wrote: ↑Fri Nov 21, 2025 8:45 pm Does it significantly free them up? Both clubs have been butting into the 70% cap from UEFA if they want to be in Europe.

I can see why it's a good thing for say a club like Villa who probably have bigger revenue than some of the newer up and comers like Bournemouth and Brighton to keep those teams at arms length. I'm just doubtful it helps them bridge the gap any further to the biggest teams as when talking about percentages it seemingly plays into those bigger team's favour given their enormous revenues.

I don't know, the way I see it none of those big 6 are even remotely hamstrung by the current rules. Chelsea and Man United have made a mockery of it in particular. Liverpool have just spent nearly half a billion in one summer. These clubs can just throw whatever money they want at players every transfer window.

Extreme analogy but to me, this is like giving a billionaire £500k and giving a regular bloke £250k. Makes no difference whatsoever to the billionaire whereas it changes things significantly for the normal bloke. Whereas under the current PSR rules then the billionaire gets £499k whilst the regular bloke gets £1k.*

*I don't actually know how much these new rules will free up teams to spend money but you get the gist of what I'm trying to say.

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.

“protection against sporting underperformance”

This is the bit

They can pay massively over the odds for shit players, have an awful season, miss out on the CL say, and then be allowed to spend more to get back to the top because they messed up