Dave Posted June 6 Share Posted June 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reluctant Striker Posted June 6 Share Posted June 6 The uplift probably does have a chance to pass the vote. I've read that 6 clubs are potentially at risk of Everton & Forest style points deductions, if they do not sell enough value before end of June. Under the current limits. Villa one of them. Others supposed to be Chelsea, Newcastle, Leicester, Everton (again) & Forest (again) Needs 8 of the other 14 to agree. If you take those 6 as certainties. Just wonder how significant the £30m could be exactly to Villa & others. Even Ross Barkley's £5m fee is set to go through in July. Just maybe the best plan for Villa is continue to build the squad for long term aims. Factor in to take any hit. Try to win a trophy, and just any Euro spot. It's already a long shot to maintain top 4. Really not sure selling big names offers the biggest benefit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrangeKhrush Posted June 6 Share Posted June 6 It wont affect Villa's 2024/2025 books which will benefit from Adidas. The same for us, Sela (25m), Adidas(35m) and CL(34.5m) only enters 1 July. We need to raise around 20m by 30 june to balance. If the rules change we may not have an issue then. However we have a reported 100m availability for next season. Kieran Maguire says that if PSR went up with inflation then 220m will be the losses allowed instead of 105, that changes a lot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrator Stan Posted June 6 Administrator Share Posted June 6 Yeah apparently we have to sell £30m before end of June to balance the books for now. Was £40m, but £10m of that has been paid by Chelsea for Enzo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrangeKhrush Posted June 6 Share Posted June 6 Just now, Stan said: Yeah apparently we have to sell £30m before end of June to balance the books for now. Was £40m, but £10m of that has been paid by Chelsea for Enzo. That will explain the Drewsbury Hall links. I hope you dont sell him, Leicester in the premier league is good and you need all your best players to stay Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrator Stan Posted June 6 Administrator Share Posted June 6 Just now, OrangeKhrush said: That will explain the Drewsbury Hall links. I hope you dont sell him, Leicester in the premier league is good and you need all your best players to stay I'd like him to stay but if he plays like he did last time he was in the PL, it wouldn't be that much of a loss if we were to sell. At least not a big a loss as the likes of Fofana, Chilwell, Maddison, Barnes, Mahrez etc have been who also went for big money in recent seasons. If we keep him, I can see the likes of Justin, Daka, Faes, Souttar, Choudhury, Ward, () & Iversen all being sold to build up funds. Majority of the funds would come from the first 3 there. Wage-wise, at the moment we're losing Praet, Ndidi, Iheanacho & Albrighton as their contracts end this month. Approx £200k/w off the wage bill. Add another £100k/w if Vardy leaves but apparently he'll be staying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrangeKhrush Posted June 6 Share Posted June 6 I am also hearing that Man United are in a "sell to buy" phase but somehow avoided getting named on the Premier League hit list. I am concerned for Everton and Forest as repeat offenders, what will the sanction be for a second strike? I am supporting Villa's partition but I think 200m is more realistic with current football inflation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subscriber RandoEFC+ Posted June 6 Subscriber Share Posted June 6 It is ludicrous that this threshold hasn't been adapted to reflect the inflation of player transfer fees and wages over the years. When there's 14 or more clubs in the position of having to sell by June 30th instead of 6 then we might see a rule change because that's how bad it needs to get for the clubs to vote for a change. None of them have any sense of wanting the rules to work properly. Self interest is king, this is why we need an independent regulator. The clubs and the Premier League themselves can't be trusted to do anything but drive English football off a cliff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrator Stan Posted June 6 Administrator Share Posted June 6 15-2 against. 3 clubs abstained. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
6666 Posted June 6 Share Posted June 6 3 minutes ago, Stan said: 15-2 against. 3 clubs abstained. They voted against increasing it? Player prices have gone up drastically so you'd assume an increase in the threshold would be the natural next step that the clubs agree to. If they want there to be a strict line then okay, hopefully they can stick to it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Gonzo Posted June 6 Share Posted June 6 18 minutes ago, 6666 said: They voted against increasing it? Player prices have gone up drastically so you'd assume an increase in the threshold would be the natural next step that the clubs agree to. If they want there to be a strict line then okay, hopefully they can stick to it. Think voting against increasing it is the only thing they can really do to attempt to control the ridiculous market prices for players. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrator Stan Posted June 6 Administrator Share Posted June 6 1 hour ago, 6666 said: They voted against increasing it? Player prices have gone up drastically so you'd assume an increase in the threshold would be the natural next step that the clubs agree to. If they want there to be a strict line then okay, hopefully they can stick to it. Yep. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subscriber Dan+ Posted June 6 Subscriber Share Posted June 6 2 hours ago, Stan said: I'd like him to stay but if he plays like he did last time he was in the PL, it wouldn't be that much of a loss if we were to sell. At least not a big a loss as the likes of Fofana, Chilwell, Maddison, Barnes, Mahrez etc have been who also went for big money in recent seasons. If we keep him, I can see the likes of Justin, Daka, Faes, Souttar, Choudhury, Ward, () & Iversen all being sold to build up funds. Majority of the funds would come from the first 3 there. Wage-wise, at the moment we're losing Praet, Ndidi, Iheanacho & Albrighton as their contracts end this month. Approx £200k/w off the wage bill. Add another £100k/w if Vardy leaves but apparently he'll be staying. I don't think he was ever that bad really. I think he had a pretty good record in 2022/23 (which is remarkable) but then with him I've always felt KDH is more of a first team option rather than our key man. He got more goal involvements last season than I thought he was capable of so I may have to rethink how I see him, but I always had him as a box to box type rather than a creator and scorer which is how he played last season. Lots again depends to me on the new manager which is why for all we shouldn't rush the appointment, we do need to get a bit of a move on and for them to present their plan of who they want to keep and get rid of. If we need to do it by the end of June I don't see the likes of Faes going as he'll be at the tournament and a prospective sale of him would be in response to that me thinks. He's definitely one I'd look to sell though. I've completely gone off him. Reckless player. I'd honestly sooner keep Souttar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subscriber Dan+ Posted June 6 Subscriber Share Posted June 6 2 hours ago, RandoEFC said: It is ludicrous that this threshold hasn't been adapted to reflect the inflation of player transfer fees and wages over the years. When there's 14 or more clubs in the position of having to sell by June 30th instead of 6 then we might see a rule change because that's how bad it needs to get for the clubs to vote for a change. None of them have any sense of wanting the rules to work properly. Self interest is king, this is why we need an independent regulator. The clubs and the Premier League themselves can't be trusted to do anything but drive English football off a cliff. Clubs will be hit with literal points deductions for spending money (despite spending a fraction of some of the other clubs in the league) yet those same clubs got away totally free with trying to leave the league and bring the structure down. The game is broken. It's completely rigged. It's why I can't get angry with Man City fighting them even if they are guilty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrangeKhrush Posted June 6 Share Posted June 6 It is a vicious circle; to get more money you need to be successful, to be successful you need to spend money, to get better players you need to spend more, if you spend more the more likely you are to hit PSR and hit the hard reset button. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
6666 Posted June 6 Share Posted June 6 1 hour ago, OrangeKhrush said: It is a vicious circle; to get more money you need to be successful, to be successful you need to spend money, to get better players you need to spend more, if you spend more the more likely you are to hit PSR and hit the hard reset button. We went through this even before PSR existed. Selling all our top players summer after summer to pay off the stadium debt and having to bring in low cost alternatives. Avoid massive losses? We actually had to make a profit. People mocked Wenger for not winning the title under those conditions but it was an achievement in itself to guide us through that period while still getting CL football. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluebird Hewitt Posted June 7 Share Posted June 7 15 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said: Think voting against increasing it is the only thing they can really do to attempt to control the ridiculous market prices for players. I do have a little tin foil hat theory behind why clubs rejected it, but as it was more or less rejected unanimously, it doesn't quite work out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrangeKhrush Posted June 7 Share Posted June 7 It's amazing how they have a body that can arbitrarily determine if a sponsor is not market value but no such body to regulate stupid player prices. They could have hard limited spend to 100m that would have driven prices down but the goal isnt about regulating it's about restricting anyone challenging the bread and butter clubs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
6666 Posted June 9 Share Posted June 9 On 07/06/2024 at 11:25, OrangeKhrush said: It's amazing how they have a body that can arbitrarily determine if a sponsor is not market value but no such body to regulate stupid player prices. They could have hard limited spend to 100m that would have driven prices down but the goal isnt about regulating it's about restricting anyone challenging the bread and butter clubs How does the league benefit from restricting competition? Football fans love it more when the bigger sides are struggling as well. That's when people tune in. Man Utd being crap in the league has been great for business. Having Chelsea & Man City along with Arsenal, Man Utd, & Liverpool means there's more of a fight for top European positions. That benefits the league. People just don't like inorganic progress especially when there are rules in place that everyone agreed to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subscriber RandoEFC+ Posted June 9 Subscriber Share Posted June 9 2 hours ago, 6666 said: How does the league benefit from restricting competition? Football fans love it more when the bigger sides are struggling as well. That's when people tune in. Man Utd being crap in the league has been great for business. Having Chelsea & Man City along with Arsenal, Man Utd, & Liverpool means there's more of a fight for top European positions. That benefits the league. People just don't like inorganic progress especially when there are rules in place that everyone agreed to. This assumption seems to hold but it actually doesn't. Fans love it when Man Utd struggle and Leicester win the league. Sponsors absolutely do not. Man Utd being awful hasn't been great for business at all. One of the Premier League's biggest brands away from the global spotlight of the Champions League at the expense of the likes of Aston Villa and Newcastle? They can't be having that. It's incredibly naive to link at all what fans find entertaining to what the league will prioritise. There are hundreds of millions of football fans across America, Asia, Africa who tune in to the Premier League just to watch Man Utd because of what they are as a brand. The people running the Premier League want those clubs to be front and centre. Inorganic progress is a daft phrase to use. There's nothing organic either about Chelsea and Man Utd being able to spend hundreds of millions on players every summer when they're both among the worst run professional clubs in the entire country. Villa and Newcastle have spent a bit and are now forced to balance the books. Chelsea and Man Utd will never have to. It's a two-tiered system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
6666 Posted June 9 Share Posted June 9 1 hour ago, RandoEFC said: Inorganic progress is a daft phrase to use. There's nothing organic either about Chelsea and Man Utd being able to spend hundreds of millions on players every summer when they're both among the worst run professional clubs in the entire country. Villa and Newcastle have spent a bit and are now forced to balance the books. Chelsea and Man Utd will never have to. It's a two-tiered system. "Inorganic process" is the perfect phrase to use as that's what the issue is. Man Utd's money comes from being a massive club. They have a lot of fans and sponsors will pay big to a club that's massive. That's why it's considered completely fair. And Man Utd have had to watch their spending anyway, that's why they didn't do much in January. Same with Arsenal. That was down to PSR forcing them to stay within a limit. Just because they didn't cross the line doesn't mean it didn't affect their spending. Also, don't know why you're throwing Chelsea in with Man Utd. Chelsea are using every loophole they can find to inflate their income and deflate their cost. Not the same boat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subscriber RandoEFC+ Posted June 10 Subscriber Share Posted June 10 6 hours ago, 6666 said: "Inorganic process" is the perfect phrase to use as that's what the issue is. Man Utd's money comes from being a massive club. They have a lot of fans and sponsors will pay big to a club that's massive. That's why it's considered completely fair. And Man Utd have had to watch their spending anyway, that's why they didn't do much in January. Same with Arsenal. That was down to PSR forcing them to stay within a limit. Just because they didn't cross the line doesn't mean it didn't affect their spending. Also, don't know why you're throwing Chelsea in with Man Utd. Chelsea are using every loophole they can find to inflate their income and deflate their cost. Not the same boat. So the clubs that were rich at the start of the 1990s or financially doped themselves before these rules came in should permanently be allowed to spend way, way more than everyone else regardless of how poorly they're run in perpetuity? Football is a sport. These aren't FTSE 100 companies we support. Man Utd have performed absolutely awfully relatively to their budget for well over a decade now. I get that people get all emotive about oil clubs and can't separate the ownership from the fairness of the rules so let's look at Aston Villa instead of Newcastle. Spent a bit of money, nowhere near as much as Man Utd, spent it better than Man Utd, finished well clear of Man Utd to qualify for the Champions League, they'll have more income from prize money than Man Utd. Villa will have to sell players to comply with the rules this summer. Man Utd will have a net spend of probably hundreds of millions. All because Man Utd sell more merchandise and shite than Aston Villa. This is not a sport. This is a two-tiered anti-competitive system. I get why you want these rules to stay if you support a rich club. You're basically saying that under the current rules, the richest clubs should just stay the richest forever and no matter how well clubs like Villa or Brighton do, they should never be allowed to get to a position where they'll have the same budget as Man Utd or Arsenal. For me, football is supposedly a sport and that should be a meritocracy. If you think clubs' chances to succeed should depend on how much merchandise they sell and how much they built their brand up 30 years ago then you're entitled to that opinion. Personally I think the clubs who actually do what they do well should flourish and clubs that are run like a circus like Man Utd and Chelsea should slip down the pecking order. I know that's dangerous talk to some people who have been conditioned to think that football should actually be all about marketing and spreadsheets because it means that they can confidently look forward to their club being able to dominate the sport for literally the rest of their lives. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Gonzo Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 18 hours ago, 6666 said: "Inorganic process" is the perfect phrase to use as that's what the issue is. Man Utd's money comes from being a massive club. They have a lot of fans and sponsors will pay big to a club that's massive. That's why it's considered completely fair. And Man Utd have had to watch their spending anyway, that's why they didn't do much in January. Same with Arsenal. That was down to PSR forcing them to stay within a limit. Just because they didn't cross the line doesn't mean it didn't affect their spending. Also, don't know why you're throwing Chelsea in with Man Utd. Chelsea are using every loophole they can find to inflate their income and deflate their cost. Not the same boat. Man Utd's money comes from being a big club that saw success after the top flight broke off the football league to start making massive TV deals and fuck over the rest of the football pyramid in the process. I'm not sure that's quite as organic as it sounds at first glance when you actually look at how the premier league was formed. I think there should be rules against the financial doping, but I also think the premier league's generally massively hypocritical in it's approach to financial rules considering the history of the league. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cicero Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 Says it all really when Villa have qualified for The Champions League yet they still have to make one big money sale this summer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subscriber RandoEFC+ Posted August 6 Subscriber Share Posted August 6 Comes with a Talksport sized pinch of salt but... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.