Probably a combination alright mate.. The circumstances may be empowering though, it’s stopping us from being like a child running with a scissors in the market.
I’ve been wondering about PL oversight and am coming down on thinking it’s more unlikely than not. They sanctioned the Jan market for us and they would have had a good understanding of what our costs and anticipated losses would have been to June and we’re happy enough with that. If they’ve accepted our losses for profit and sustainability as compliant we have about 20 mill scope.
We've since sold Richarlison, we have 25 mill in the chamber for Kean, the one thing that might give the PL the wobbles is the loss of the USM money, I believe it was paid last financial year, but not this new one. My take is we may have a bit more leeway than we did in the last two windows, just my opinion though.
I'd honestly be tempted to say 'f' it and go over what we can spend mate, knowing that the next season we lose a big loss year off the books and a lot of out if contract players will leave.
It's weighing up the risk of a points deduction (doubt they would as I suspect a fine would be issued as 'first warning' - I'd also make noises about legally challenging any punishment as a way of making the premiership cautious about coming down too hard), as otherwise we risk being too worried about a future possible punishment to the extent we end up hamstringing ourselves and stumbling into the season with a squad which could go down, the financial cost of which would outweigh massively any punishment the league could throw at us.
Not suggesting we go absolutely mental and throw 300m and 200k wages around.
But operate at the level where you can show you've implemented a more sensible wage structure (cap at 80-90k on any incoming) but spend considerably on fees to get the players you actually want and need.
P&S has two facets to it, incoming to outgoing - that's what I'm suggesting we say 'f' it too and yes breach it. And it has wages as percentage of income, that's what I'm suggesting we show a reduction in with a 'structure' that will see it reduce further over time.
Breech one reg whilst showing willingness to comply with another, makes it more difficult for them to drop the hammer (especially as we will have given them the opt out by showing we are moving towards compliance in one part)