The Brennan Johnson/Richy incidents say it all. If you have to sell players before a completely arbitrary date to comply with an arbitrary rule, the buying club has all the power. So by selling early to ensure you comply with PSR, you deliberately bring LESS cash (ignoring profit) into a club that by definition is probably running short, compared to waiting until deadline day for the auction process to maximise your sale price and cash inflow.
Arguably the situation only arises because of poor decisions you made in previous windows, but you could fall into that situation say because of a foreign war, or a sanctioned sponsor. Or just a tummy bug running through the squad meaning you lose loads and get less prize money.
How can any process supposed to protect fans from stupid owners running their club into the ground actually force you to make a decision that will bring less cash into the club. Its unworkable, unenforceable, impractical, and most of all massively skewed to clubs that already have a higher base level of non player sale related global revenue.
Someone with infinite wealth could buy Bournmouth and build a 290000 seater stadium, but they’d never fill it. Apple won’t sponsor them (and if they did it would have to be at market rates). And they won’t start selling merchandise in Asia and Africa until they have won 3 titles. But they can’t win titles because they can’t spend the same as United. It impossible to complete.
Is it still sport if 70% of the competitors are effectively banned from winning?
(Insert Leicester argument here)
Its a good post mate and in the main i agree.
For me the corrupt element comes into - our sanction came as a result of an accounting error on an interest payment in building a new stadium - our sanction came as a result of investing in infrastructure - investing in the community - creating jobs - making the club more sustainable and future proofing the club - that was the very point of PSR. Its contradictory and rotten.
The counter is - the clubs agreed the rule and signed up to it.
If you really anaylse it forces other clubs to make themselves less competitive by having to sell their best players knocked down, to clubs with more money to comply. So the game and results become not about sport but about business - sporting outcomes are decided now off the field and not on it - who wants to watch that.
What can we do?
I touched on this during the week in another thread, there is a general acceptance that we have to sell Brathwaite and at a knock down fee - because "we need the money". We've been conditioned into that - "he has to go to a bigger club" or "we need the money". Thats our current mindset.
Is there a different way though. Less then about 10 years ago we were regularly finishing ahead of Spurs, in the time they broke the glass ceiling of CL, they reinvested that money to grow their revenue base, stadium etc and made themselves sustainable. How did they do that - they had a gem in Kane and they dint follow the surrender mindset and built a team around him and built the club off the back of that success in the last 10-15 years - it is possible even in the current context. But you have to be brave and not follow the perceived logic of selling your best players - you also need wise owners with foresight. WHU are another example with a European trophy last season, flatly refusing to sell Rice for at least 3-4 seasons. when you are lucky enough for these opportunities to come up you have to take them.
The difference we've already prepared ourselves to Sell Onana and
Branthwaite this window or next - if we continue to do that, we are throwing water out of a leaky ship with a bucket.
There is a different way even in the corruption.