PSR Out. SCR In.

[stubbo-admin]

Looks like new Financial rules in play from next season with Squad Cost Ratio to replace PSR.

No doubt the Chairman is currently swotting up so he can start bemoaning our percentages.  But the reality is we hammered down the wage bill last Summer so should be well placed.

For all the deets, take a look here:

https://www.premierleague.com/en/news/4 ... -explained

[Westside]

"So the difference between 60% and 85% is the amount available for player trading? "

Yes, plus whatever you make on selling players (proceeds and profit on player sales, isn't in the wages to turnover ratio in our accounts).

[goose]

Our revenue is something like £275m?

i think our wages were c60% of revenue. Clubs like Forest and Villa were in the 90s.

That's right Goose. The 60% includes ALL wages (from the last set of accounts), so you can knock off a percentage point or two, for non playing staff.  Brady gets over a million a year for example.

So the difference between 60% and 85% is the amount available for player trading? 

[Westside]

Our revenue is something like £275m?

i think our wages were c60% of revenue. Clubs like Forest and Villa were in the 90s.

That's right Goose. The 60% includes ALL wages (from the last set of accounts), so you can knock off a percentage point or two, for non playing staff.  Brady gets over a million a year for example.

[Far Cough UKunt]

Does this new system favour the so called "big clubs"? 

Wouldn't surprise me if it did.

[Mex Martillo]

Is it just me, but I cannot be bothered to try and understand what the meddling cunts are going to try now.

[Westside]

This may actually help us. We are getting close to the PSR threshold (will see how close when the 2024 accounts are released later this year). Presumably, with a brand new system measuring your spending, the slate is wiped clean and you start again. So we won't have the pressure of already being at the PSR limit.

Don't know how clubs who sell a home grown player for large proceeds will be affected. We have had the benefit of the Rice windfall in our PSR numbers for 3 years. Seems like it's a one year deal with SCR.

[fraser]

There was a better option of limiting spending to five times the bottom earning clubs in income.or something along those lines which would have helped a bit more healthy competition.. Just going to make it harder now for anyone to bridge the gap. 

[Mike Oxsaw]

This will be the excuse for the BIG 6 too finally break away. And start the Super League that they want.

I don't think that's so much of an issue any more. Sure, the global media will saturate the airwaves/internet with coverage of Super League games, but people will soon bore of it.

Meanwhile the PL will simply regroup and continue with, initially, lower media coverage/revenues, but will grow again to regain it's high global status, at which point the "Big 6" (and many of it's "stars") will start begging to be re-admitted.

[RBshorty]

This will be the excuse for the BIG 6 too finally break away. And start the Super League that they want.

[goose]

Our revenue is something like £275m?

i think our wages were c60% of revenue. Clubs like Forest and Villa were in the 90s.

[ragingbull]

It caps spending on players (wages, transfers, etc.) at 85% of the club's revenue from football plus any net profit/loss from selling players. This aims to keep clubs financially healthy.
Man U will benefit with higher revenue but Bournemouth won't with lower revenue.

We might benefit if Sullivan increases his dildo sales.

[goose]

Actually pretty interesting stuff. Sounds like we’ve missed the boat on flogging the ladies team.

From memory our wages to turnover % was pretty low so we might be in good shape.

[Mad Ferret]

Bore off.