Seems similar to what the EFL tried, asking for proof that the PSR will be met for the current season, however the flaw in the rule is that players can be sold after the end of the season, meaning a mid season review is inadequate as a means of determining compliance. At start of EFL financial window, we sold Barnes, and also loaned out a bunch of others, then at end of window we also sold KDH and got the Enzo compo, the latter bit meant we have complied but the embargo didnt take that into account as it was issued prematurely due to EFL clubs lobbying. As far as I know our counter legal action against the EFL has not been dropped. The sport needs to be regulated independently, absolutely no question an independent regulator would not base spending limits on revenue/income. Also wouldnt get emotional in dishing out punishments.
That's not it. This is a complete nothing story - every club has to submit last season's accounts in December so that they can hand out any punishments for last season by the end of this one. The story is literally "if Leicester broke the psr rules last season, they might still get a points deduction this season", which is of course true for every single club in the league
Although that’s true for other teams I’m not sure if it applies to us. PSR is over the last 3 years, we appear to have lost a year and the PL has said they can’t use the previous 3 seasons accounts again, so this implies we started a new 3 year cycle last year. Obviously I might be wrong about that, but I’m sure the PL will have us in their sights and looking at ways to punish us.
Oh yeah, the story is definitely click baiting, but my point was a mid season review is not adequate to determine what the current financial year losses will be.
I'm not sure where you are getting that from, as it doesn't match my understanding of the recent decision (though I'm a bit thick so could also have misunderstood the decision when I skimmed through it) My understanding is that they can't punish you for the 3 year period ending in 22/23, because at the end of your accounting period for 22/23 you weren't a member of the premier league and therefore weren't subject to its rules. However, they can punish you for the 3 year period ending in 23/24 if you breached psr last season, because by the end of your accounting period for 23/24 you were once again a member of the premier league and therefore were/are subject to its rules It's not that the 22/23 accounts are completely unusable, it's just that the breach can't exist until the end of each 3 year cycle, so as you weren't a member of the league at the end of the 20/21-22/23 period they can't punish you for breaching rules that didn't apply to you
Ah ok it’s was probably me miss reading it. Either way it’s being reported here that we weren’t in breach last season anyway.
The issue with the rules (other than poorly written so clubs can worm themselves out of the rules) is that they weren’t introduced 15 years before they were.
Playing devil's advocate here but why are Newcastle not flying into the market and doing what Chelsea are doing? Is it because of the rules or because their owner decided to buy.football different way (own league)?
They don't have the income Chelsea do, apparently they also had to make certain guarantees to get approved to buy the club
Chelsea's £76.5m hotel sale for PSR is cleared by Premier League How did it get broken beyond repair? Shit like this. It's not just broken, it's dead.
Just a reminder - NFFC needed to sell a homegrown asset in Johnson to meet PSR, but waited a few weeks past the deadline in doing so to maximise profit. This was not classed as mitigation, and they were punished for it. The PL are literally making it up as they go along. Christ, the world will ignite when City's case is concluded.
Not really. Selling assets like Hotels has always been in the rules. It shouldn’t be, but it always has been. The PL tried to close this loophole, but 9 clubs voted against it. It’s the clubs’ fault. Regarding Forest, not comparable at all. End of the day, Forest broke the rules, knew they would, kept spending anyway. The punishment was relatively small, I think most think it was fair.
I'm waiting to see their revenues numbers for 23/24. There will be a jump due to their tiny cl run but I think we will see about 100mil jump in commercial.
If we'd accepted a bid pre-deadline from yourselves, we'd have met PSR requirements and not been punished. Forget our spending before, what dross we brought in, however many players - we decided (rightly or wrongly) that we thought Johnson was worth more, and therefore waited to maximise profit. Chelsea are allowed to sell a hotel to themselves essentially to get around a possible PSR punishment and this is allowed by the same governance that decided to punish our decision to maximise profit on a homegrown asset. That's why we feel aggrieved, despite the fact we know we broke the 'rules'. The rules aren't fit for purpose, which is what Leicester & Chelsea are exploiting. Doesn't it tick you off that Brentford, who are well run, have sold players and reinvested cleverly over the last few years to remain PSR compliant - whilst other clubs are playing the system, exploiting loopholes & avoiding punishment?
Did you buy players from that July to August.and then in January.and then in fullness to July 1 for the year you were punished in? If you had to buy to survive the prior July and January and did survive.than that's job done so accept the punishment and move on. If you bought in the june time frame and then just didn't sell BJ until August for a profit reason then you have no excuse. You could have just delayed buying til august too. Again take the punishment and move on imo. Forest are still in the prem raking in cash so breaking the rules worked. I'm surprised there's been so few rule breakers after Everton punishment got knocked down and forests came.in so small. It's well worth the risk to get the 100mil reward.
I'm not arguing that we didn't deserve to be punished. We broke the rules, however unjust we as fans feel about it. My argument is that those 'rules' are being exploited by other clubs who are now avoiding punishment. Surely people can see how Forest/Everton feel aggrieved by this? It's clear that it's not just having the best players that's important now, it's having the best lawyers.
I think Forest could feel right to be aggrieved if they hadn’t kept signing players in the interim. If you want to sell Johnson for more you have to wait to spend more. That’s how everyone else operates. Chelsea and what they are doing is annoying, and it should all be banned IMO - doesn’t compare to the Forest event though.
The Premier Accounting and Legalese League - live on Sky! Brought to you by <obscure far eastern betting firm>.
