Premier League Thread 26/27 (10 Viewers)

[no_loyalty]

Man city with a couple of signings today. Do they even need them?

Man City and Chelsea still continuing to splash the cash, what’s the loophole? Villa had to sell to keep within PSR.

 

[AFCCOVENTRY]

Man city with a couple of signings today. Do they even need them?

They’re worried about us.

 

[shepardo01]

 

[Lamps]

Weird that Sunderland have got somebody on loan with an obligation to buy if they don't get relegated....

Money is a bit tight for them this season. They're playing in Europe, so instead of the 85% of revenue allowed on the playing squad including wages and transfers they're only allowed to spend 70% because of UEFA rules.

 

[OffenhamSkyBlue]

Money is a bit tight for them this season. They're playing in Europe, so instead of the 85% of revenue allowed on the playing squad including wages and transfers they're only allowed to spend 70% because of UEFA rules.

Aren't Man City and Chelsea in Europe this year then???

 

[Lamps]

Aren't Man City and Chelsea in Europe this year then???

There's a massive difference in their revenues to Sunderland.

 

[Torquay Sky Blue]

Fernandez. What a cuntish signing that was

 

[Captain Dart]

Some hopium. Everton in a state with a thin squad depth.

 

[Nick]

Everton can still sign free agents as well though to be fair.

 

[Grendel]

There's a massive difference in their revenues to Sunderland.

There is also a massive difference in their wage bills

 

[Lamps]

There is also a massive difference in their wage bills

And Manchester City normally make a big profit each season. Their revenues are up to about £750m a season now.

Sunderland were on about £40m a year in the Championship. Last season in the Prem it was just over £200m.

So under the UEFA rules Manchester City can spend about £525m on their squad and Sunderland just £140m. There will be an uplift for Sunderland playing in Europe, but it's in a much smaller cup.

 

[Grendel]

And Manchester City normally make a big profit each season. Their revenues are up to about £750m a season now.

Sunderland were on about £40m a year in the Championship. Last season in the Prem it was just over £200m.

So under the UEFA rules Manchester City can spend about £525m on their squad and Sunderland just £140m. There will be an uplift for Sunderland playing in Europe, but it's in a much smaller cup.

It’s nothing to do with spend. As I’ve said Bournemouth have £6 million gate revenue and comfortably meet the requirement. They have £150 million wage bill and easily meet it. They have spent nearly £80 million this season and sold hardly anyone. They have an absurdly disproportionate amount of revenue from external sponsorship, commercial revenue, external loan funding and overseas spend all of which count.

It’s a nonsense anyway as the fines made are minor and even in most cases suspended

There are hardly any clubs that fail to meet the requirement and any that do look at it as a parking ticket which is worth doing anyway

 

[theskyisthelimit]

It’s nothing to do with spend. As I’ve said Bournemouth have £6 million gate revenue and comfortably meet the requirement. They have £150 million wage bill and easily meet it. They have spent nearly £80 million this season and sold hardly anyone. They have an absurdly disproportionate amount of revenue from external sponsorship, commercial revenue, external loan funding and overseas spend all of which count.

It’s a nonsense anyway as the fines made are minor and even in most cases suspended

There are hardly any clubs that fail to meet the requirement and any that do look at it as a parking ticket which is worth doing anyway

Bournemouth have sold quite a few players in the last few windows though so I am sure they still have some revenue left over

 

[Grendel]

Bournemouth have sold quite a few players in the last few windows though so I am sure they still have some revenue left over

Even with the sales last season over 3 years they have spent more on transfers in than out

 

[theskyisthelimit]

Even with the sales last season over 3 years they have spent more on transfers in than out

I don't know so I will accept it as fact. Would have just thought with Kerkez, Outarra, Huijsen, Solanke, Semenyo and Zabarnyi have raised massive funds for them

 

[Grendel]

I don't know so I will accept it as fact. Would have just thought with Kerkez, Outarra, Huijsen, Solanke, Semenyo and Zabarnyi have raised massive funds for them

£97 million in the accounts as net profit on trading that season

 

[Hybridtheory]

Man City and Chelsea still continuing to splash the cash, what’s the loophole? Villa had to sell to keep within PSR.

It's scr. Their revenues are huge so can spend 85% of that if not in Europe (Chelsea) or 75% if in

 

[Hybridtheory]

£97 million in the accounts as net profit on trading that season

Which is immediately bankable. All the recruits will be spread over 5 years

 

[Grendel]

Which is immediately bankable. All the recruits will be spread over 5 years

And a net deficit on spend of £130 million across the two seasons in between

 

[Nick]

 

[Cov. Kids. Never. Quit]

Man city with a couple of signings today. Do they even need them?

185mil on two players and they're still under investigation for financial irregularities. The games fucked.

 

[Captain Dart]

Everton can still sign free agents as well though to be fair.

Jamie Allen is available.

 

[Lamps]

It’s nothing to do with spend. As I’ve said Bournemouth have £6 million gate revenue and comfortably meet the requirement. They have £150 million wage bill and easily meet it. They have spent nearly £80 million this season and sold hardly anyone. They have an absurdly disproportionate amount of revenue from external sponsorship, commercial revenue, external loan funding and overseas spend all of which count.

It’s a nonsense anyway as the fines made are minor and even in most cases suspended

There are hardly any clubs that fail to meet the requirement and any that do look at it as a parking ticket which is worth doing anyway

What a load of bollocks as usual.

So how can it have nothing to do with what a club spends? It's everything about how a club spends.

And a little reminder.....these rules are in force in the Prem for the first time this season. So don't bother bringing up your facts that have no bearing on the new rules.

 

[Grendel]

What a load of bollocks as usual.

So how can it have nothing to do with what a club spends? It's everything about how a club spends.

And a little reminder.....these rules are in force in the Prem for the first time this season. So don't bother bringing up your facts that have no bearing on the new rules

so it’s purely based on spend - nothing else? So it’s based on a spend cap?

 

[Lamps]

And a net deficit on spend of £130 million across the two seasons in between

Under when the rules were over 3 years and losses were allowed up to a certain percentage of revenues.

The same rules that have done the damage to Leicester as they spent the money expecting to stay up but bought duds on massive wages nobody wanted.

 

[Grendel]

Under when the rules were over 3 years and losses were allowed up to a certain percentage of revenues.

The same rules that have done the damage to Leicester as they spent the money expecting to stay up but bought duds on massive wages nobody wanted.

Bournemouth easily meet the new requirements - let me know one club who doesn’t - I’m not even taking about losses i am illustrating how the smallest club in terms of crowd revenue with a wage bill of £150 million easily meets any of the new rules. I never mentioned losses?

 

[Russell Slade]

Can see Everton getting dragged in to the scrap. 18 senior players and Barry their only recognised striker

 

[Lamps]

Bournemouth easily meet the new requirements - let me know one club who doesn’t - I’m not even taking about losses i am illustrating how the smallest club in terms of crowd revenue with a wage bill of £150 million easily meets any of the new rules. I never mentioned losses?

You said spend doesn't matter.

Of course they meet the new rules just like they met the old rules, yet you stated their spending under the old rules as what can be done.

Never mentioned losses? Over the 3 years you stated their losses in the transfer market over the 3 years.

 

[Grendel]

You said spend doesn't matter.

Of course they meet the new rules just like they met the old rules, yet you stated their spending under the old rules as what can be done.

Never mentioned losses? Over the 3 years you stated their losses in the transfer market over the 3 years.

I stated net transfer spend not losses

never change mate

 

[Lamps]

And a net deficit on spend of £130 million across the two seasons in between

I stated net transfer spend not losses

never change mate

Always twisting the truth.

Looking forward to how a net deficit isn't a net loss.

Never change mate.

 

[Simpson]

Hello, a message just popped up from your Admin and reminded me of my last post on here iirc.

It was to wish you good luck, after your promotion, and the same goes now.

It's a tough league, obviously, but you stormed the Championship and have some good players.

Whatever happens you'll have an interesting season, all the best and good luck.

 

[Hybridtheory]

It’s nothing to do with spend. As I’ve said Bournemouth have £6 million gate revenue and comfortably meet the requirement. They have £150 million wage bill and easily meet it. They have spent nearly £80 million this season and sold hardly anyone. They have an absurdly disproportionate amount of revenue from external sponsorship, commercial revenue, external loan funding and overseas spend all of which count.

It’s a nonsense anyway as the fines made are minor and even in most cases suspended

There are hardly any clubs that fail to meet the requirement and any that do look at it as a parking ticket which is worth doing anyway

Why are you lying or making things up. Their accounts are available for the world to see and they last posted revenue of £181m of which TV revenue is the majority and commercial is £27m which is basically nothing .

Scr rules mean you can spend up to 85% of your revenue and meet the rules and as you can bank sales immediately it makes it easy. For example Bournemouth have sold players for a total of £288m in the last two seasons

 

[Hybridtheory]

Actually not true

Even with the sales last season over 3 years they have spent more on transfers in than out

Not true but buys are spread over 5 years and sales banked immediately

 

[Grendel]

Why are you lying or making things up. Their accounts are available for the world to see and they last posted revenue of £181m of which TV revenue is the majority and commercial is £27m which is basically nothing .

Scr rules mean you can spend up to 85% of your revenue and meet the rules and as you can bank sales immediately it makes it easy. For example Bournemouth have sold players for a total of £288m in the last two seasons

I’m not lying the gate receipts are as shown and I’ve broken down the other elements as well as TV money - I said commercial was the figure as you’ve stated and actually up 45%

I said in one season they had a net profit on player sales of £97 million. This season if you believe the stated figures they have spent £67million more than generated by player sales. I can’t see any sales the season before last other than Solanke and they made purchases totalling £145 million

 

[Lamps]

I’m not lying the gate receipts are as shown and I’ve broken down the other elements as well as TV money - I said commercial was the figure as you’ve stated and actually up 45%

I said in one season they had a net profit on player sales of £97 million. This season if you believe the stated figures they have spent £67million more than generated by player sales. I can’t see any sales the season before last other than Solanke and they made purchases totalling £145 million

Yet you were trying to use the figures as though it could be done this season.