Initial 10, then reduced to 6 + 2 Point Deductions

[Marius57]

But it is isn't it? However it is calculated/worked out, the rule is you're allowed to make a loss of £135m over 3 seasons, correct? So that is basically net spend. So if we're at +£80m for the last two seasons then we could lose £215m this season and still be within that limit (for this season at least).

No, it’s if it was just about net spend, we would have been able to spend for years considering we have a positive net spend for 5 years.

 

[Bez2k2k]

What we should be doing now is selling the stadium to ourselves. Say it’s worth a billion quid. Sell it to a company owned by the friedkin group and not have to worry about ffp for a long long time. If anything is said about it we simply use Chelsea.

 

[Sean Ashley]

Loads of high earners have left and doesn’t seem to make a difference

A combo of Covid, loss of our main sponsor, and paying off managers have impacted revenue streams/profit making abilities.

Most of the high earners we had to let go on free's too, bought so much dross between 2015 and 2018.

 

[NathDogg]

But it is isn't it? However it is calculated/worked out, the rule is you're allowed to make a loss of £135m over 3 seasons, correct? So that is basically net spend. So if we're at +£80m for the last two seasons then we could lose £215m this season and still be within that limit (for this season at least).

No, it’s if it was just about net spend, we would have been able to spend for years considering we have a positive net spend for 5 years.

We can’t trust the PL or the scabs anyway, we can’t take the break off on spending because I’m sure they would go after us and others of the 14 again for any future breaches.

If there were no scabs involved in the non-compliance this time, I’m certain would have been deductions and penalties - it’s only chance that they have scuppered their own rigged rules that we’ve got away with it this time imo.

 

[Timbucktoo]

What we should be doing now is selling the stadium to ourselves. Say it’s worth a billion quid. Sell it to a company owned by the friedkin group and not have to worry about ffp for a long long time. If anything is said about it we simply use Chelsea.

All sounds good until the company goes bust, Friedkin group turn out to be worse than Moshiri and Bill at running a football club. We`d be back to square one except this time we don`t own our own ground. We`ve worked hard to get back from being a financial train wreck, so keep our assets and make as much revenue from them, and quit hand out huge pay checks to players that deliver early cup exits and low league position year in year out.

 

[Marius57]

We can’t trust the PL or the scabs anyway, we can’t take the break off on spending because I’m sure they would go after us and others of the 14 again for any future breaches.

If there were no scabs involved in the non-compliance this time, I’m certain would have been deductions and penalties - it’s only chance that they have scuppered their own rigged rules that we’ve got away with it this time imo.

I guess there may be questions raised when the accounts are all made public later in the year

 

[Jacko93]

What we should be doing now is selling the stadium to ourselves. Say it’s worth a billion quid. Sell it to a company owned by the friedkin group and not have to worry about ffp for a long long time. If anything is said about it we simply use Chelsea.

If we sell it for £1bn, then we only benefit from that for 3 years, as the period is 3 years for income and outgoings. What Chrlsea have done is inflate incoming to cover the influx of players over the top of existing costs, while reducing long term payments by putting them on long contracts before they were ruled out.

I still think Chelsea aren't out of the woods as they only need one or two crocks to long term contracted players and they can only sell so many non playing assets. But I also have no doubt that they will never be punished for it anyway. Certainly not in the same way we were.

 

[formerly manx toffee]

I would hope the the restructuring of debt keeps this problem away from us somewhat. The interest we were paying was above commercial rates due in part to us being a “bad risk” and therefore not using mainstream commercial lending parties meant the terms were difficult to stomach and restrictive, vetos over actions for example.

The decisions to use these lenders was probably forced upon us at the time. Main backs pulling up the drawbridge. Fundamentally though this and a lack of commercial income has been where our problems lie.

It was a 20 year problem and from well before Moshris time

 

[formerly manx toffee]

If we sell it for £1bn, then we only benefit from that for 3 years, as the period is 3 years for income and outgoings. What Chrlsea have done is inflate incoming to cover the influx of players over the top of existing costs, while reducing long term payments by putting them on long contracts before they were ruled out.

I still think Chelsea aren't out of the woods as they only need one or two crocks to long term contracted players and they can only sell so many non playing assets. But I also have no doubt that they will never be punished for it anyway. Certainly not in the same way we were.

Chelsea likely to have at least an element of insurance cover against that

 

[davep]

No, it’s if it was just about net spend, we would have been able to spend for years considering we have a positive net spend for 5 years.

PSR works on 3 year rolling figures, so spends from 4/5 years ago are irrelevant.

We can’t trust the PL or the scabs anyway, we can’t take the break off on spending because I’m sure they would go after us and others of the 14 again for any future breaches.

If there were no scabs involved in the non-compliance this time, I’m certain would have been deductions and penalties - it’s only chance that they have scuppered their own rigged rules that we’ve got away with it this time imo.

Oh yeah, not suggesting we actually should, just that we could in theory. Of course the year after would be an issue, but PSR as we know it is supposed to be gone/changing then isn't it?

 

[brieverton]

Wage bills or more specifically extremely high wage to turnover ratio, why both us and Leicester have been under the scunity with PSR.
View attachment 290721

Indeed wages have been a huge problem for us. The media narrative that we were big spenders does not hold water to a large extent.

The only real profligacy in spending were in the seasons under Koeman and Silva, but alas the majority of that was indeed wasted. Ancelotti was backed too but in relative terms they were already having to rein things in by then.

Handing big contacts to mediocre players of the wrong age profile with some of those coming from "bigger" clubs, in tandem with unsurprisingly poor league and cup performances as a consequence, was the root of the problem.

Commercial performance was also an issue, but it's tied to on-field performance. They could have done better, but it's difficult to polish a turd in an environment where the top clubs scoop up everything on and off the field. And then we had war in Ukraine.

We've seen the pool we're swimming in for shirt sponsorship. It's no coincidence that clubs outside the elite are left with no option but to take gambling sponsorship.

I expect we will see a reset of commercial strategy to finally and fully embrace the global appeal of the Premier League tied with a reset in transfer policy also.

It's only through joined-up thinking at all levels and the various elements of the club working in harmony that we can hope to regain long-lost ground.

 

[Marius57]

PSR works on 3 year rolling figures, so spends from 4/5 years ago are irrelevant.

Oh yeah, not suggesting we actually should, just that we could in theory. Of course the year after would be an issue, but PSR as we know it is supposed to be gone/changing then isn't it?

Well yeah, I know that, but 2 years ago, we also had 2 years of positive net spends already and were still unable to spend.

So it’s clearly about more than just net spend.

It takes into account wages, revenue etc I mean, we got screwed over by interest repayment on loans etc. it would be very simple if it was only about net spend.

 

[mikel_88]

Well yeah, I know that, but 2 years ago, we also had 2 years of positive net spends already and were still unable to spend.

So it’s clearly about more than just net spend.

It takes into account wages, revenue etc I mean, we got screwed over by interest repayment on loans etc. it would be very simple if it was only about net spend.

Hopefully after one season in the new ground and lower payments you have said will be in a much more better place. Is unfortunate its going take another season, but well on the right path with it

 

[Blast_of_Cannock]

The players should all refuse to receive their wages for a few weeks to help with this, and show solidarity to the fans. They can still keep getting the scoring bonus clause's tho.

 

[Tony’s Carp]

Must be nice to “negotiate” your own punishment.