West Ham pushing the PSR narrative

[Sir Alf]

A few stories this morning saying we are at PSR limits and need to sell before we buy in summer. Expectation setting via Whetstone etc? 

 

[goose]

Sponsorship is part of the PSR rules. Sorry Goose, but I cannot be bothered with this.

Of course it isn’t.

The case was about sponsorship deals and what is fair market value.

PSR is a single rule about the clubs P&L.

[Mex Martillo]

Sponsorship is part of the PSR rules. Sorry Goose, but I cannot be bothered with this.

[goose]

Anyone else think they should scrap this nonsense or at least have a very serious rethink?
I know it's a bit crap, but if some rich cսnt wants to spend a load on a football team why shouldn't he be allowed to?
With the present state of affairs we have, it's the lawers that are winning and a shit load of our money paid to our clubs and the Premier league goes to fat rich lawers. Really fucking crap.

 

Well done for referencing a conversation about PSR.
You realise that this is about sponsorship and the loophole was closed last year?

[Mex Martillo]

Anyone else think they should scrap this nonsense or at least have a very serious rethink?
I know it's a bit crap, but if some rich cսnt wants to spend a load on a football team why shouldn't he be allowed to?
With the present state of affairs we have, it's the lawers that are winning and a shit load of our money paid to our clubs and the Premier league goes to fat rich lawers. Really fucking crap.

 

[goose]

As said not fit for purpose.

Premier League sponsorship rules 'void' says tribunal
https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/arti ... 8xpp3vlkko

City do what they want backed by the best lawers available. We cannot buy a new forward! How is that helping competition?
Scrap them and start again.

No you didn’t.
You never mentioned sponsorship rules.

[Mex Martillo]

As said not fit for purpose.

Premier League sponsorship rules 'void' says tribunal
https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/arti ... 8xpp3vlkko

City do what they want backed by the best lawers available. We cannot buy a new forward! How is that helping competition?
Scrap them and start again.

[goose]

PL clubs have voted to delay the implementation of new PSR rules.
The 85% of revenue rule won’t take force until 26/27.

It means another season of staying within the £105m of losses over a rolling 3 year period.

[Sir Alf]

I think we all agree that the Premiership would benefit from being more competitive and teducing the inherent “first movers” revenue advantage the 5 rich clubs have got.   An algorithim linked to attendance or gates both go me and away would be my bias choice. The current problem is like in business, “barriers to entry” as the rich 5 have built the best squads and in turn revenues ( euro revenues the best players give them and that then attract even more if the better players) before any penalties and now PSR is protecting that.  

In business a start up can disrupt the big companies via innovating and quicker product development for new markets. The football equivalent is the Brighton / Bournemouth approach to running a club and recruiting players. West Ham have to buy cheaper young players and develop them along with their academy products and expect to sell a few every season or so. If we get it right, younger players are ready to come into  the squad to replace those that are hopefully sold at a big profit.  

That seems to be the direction we are headed with Potter. The huge risk is the fvckwit chairman who needs to support the manager and not get involved.

[goose]

Can't you see it isn't working. Change is needed. If rich cunts want to put more into the Premier work out how to let them, find away that doesn't involve expensive court cases.

By what metric isn’t it working? It’s the most popular sports league on the planet.

They stopped clubs spending recklessly and they’re enforcing those laws.

[Mex Martillo]

Can't you see it isn't working. Change is needed. If rich cunts want to put more into the Premier work out how to let them, find away that doesn't involve expensive court cases.

[goose]

Yep, could be, bit like it is now.
Maybe direct TV money at underfunded clubs to level the playing field.
What we have ain't working. Too much being spent in the courts.

Really? I just have missed Newcastle winning the league.
Use your brain Mex, half the PL won’t agree to that and will walk away. The TV money for the other half will quickly disappear and they’ll very quickly become shit.


And all because poor little Mex didn’t like the PL trying to enforce its own rules. You’d probably redirect all the money to women’s football.

[Mex Martillo]

Yep, could be, bit like it is now.
Maybe direct TV money at underfunded clubs to level the playing field.
What we have ain't working. Too much being spent in the courts.

[goose]

Exactly what I said at the start. It's rubbish scrap it.

 

And just let Abu Dhabi & Saudi Arabia win everything because they have limitless money? You think people want to watch that?

[Mex Martillo]

Exactly what I said at the start. It's rubbish scrap it.
 

[goose]

It's a business Goose in the long run they cannot spend more than their income. Of course they will not break deals that have been agreed. But if this goes on and the court bills continue like they are, the PL will have to reduce payments in future agreements. The clubs will all lose out and it is supporters money that funds the entire thing. Without supporters there would be no PL, no football.

The 2025 TV deal is worth about £7bn. The PL is not reducing any payments. That’s set in stone.

The rest of your post is just some limp wristed hand wringing.

It's a waste of money supporters pay for football and they need to sort it out. They make the rules, then they brake the rules and take each other to court. It is fucking nonsense. Need to think again.

Shut up you absolute fanny.
Should the PL roll over & just let Man City do whatever they please?

[Mex Martillo]

Who pays the broadcasters is completely irrelevant.
consumers & advertisers is the answer though.

you honestly think when the next lot of TV money is due the PL will hold back money from the clubs and say “sorry we’re paying you less because we had some legal troubles”?

It's a business Goose in the long run they cannot spend more than their income. Of course they will not break deals that have been agreed. But if this goes on and the court bills continue like they are, the PL will have to reduce payments in future agreements. The clubs will all lose out and it is supporters money that funds the entire thing. Without supporters there would be no PL, no football.

The 2025 TV deal is worth about £7bn. The PL is not reducing any payments. That’s set in stone.

The rest of your post is just some limp wristed hand wringing.

It's a waste of money supporters pay for football and they need to sort it out. They make the rules, then they brake the rules and take each other to court. It is fucking nonsense. Need to think again.

[SurfaceAgentX2Zero]

;Payday loans'

Always makes me laugh that one. Payday loan = 'I want to slag the board off and I hear we have some loans like everyone else does'

[goose]

Who pays the various broadcasters?
Of course if a large part of the PL income is being spent in the courts they will have to increase revenue or reduce expenditure like future payments to the football clubs.

Who pays the broadcasters is completely irrelevant.
consumers & advertisers is the answer though.

you honestly think when the next lot of TV money is due the PL will hold back money from the clubs and say “sorry we’re paying you less because we had some legal troubles”?

It's a business Goose in the long run they cannot spend more than their income. Of course they will not break deals that have been agreed. But if this goes on and the court bills continue like they are, the PL will have to reduce payments in future agreements. The clubs will all lose out and it is supporters money that funds the entire thing. Without supporters there would be no PL, no football.

The 2025 TV deal is worth about £7bn. The PL is not reducing any payments. That’s set in stone.

The rest of your post is just some limp wristed hand wringing.

[Mex Martillo]

Who pays the various broadcasters?
Of course if a large part of the PL income is being spent in the courts they will have to increase revenue or reduce expenditure like future payments to the football clubs.

Who pays the broadcasters is completely irrelevant.
consumers & advertisers is the answer though.

you honestly think when the next lot of TV money is due the PL will hold back money from the clubs and say “sorry we’re paying you less because we had some legal troubles”?

It's a business Goose in the long run they cannot spend more than their income. Of course they will not break deals that have been agreed. But if this goes on and the court bills continue like they are, the PL will have to reduce payments in future agreements. The clubs will all lose out and it is supporters money that funds the entire thing. Without supporters there would be no PL, no football.

[goose]

Who pays the various broadcasters?
Of course if a large part of the PL income is being spent in the courts they will have to increase revenue or reduce expenditure like future payments to the football clubs.

Who pays the broadcasters is completely irrelevant.
consumers & advertisers is the answer though.

you honestly think when the next lot of TV money is due the PL will hold back money from the clubs and say “sorry we’re paying you less because we had some legal troubles”?

[Mex Martillo]

Who pays the various broadcasters?
Of course if a large part of the PL income is being spent in the courts they will have to increase revenue or reduce expenditure like future payments to the football clubs.

[Ladysmith]

The PL pay the lawyers, not us. We don’t pay a penny to the PL. The TV money is set in stone on set term contracts. They’ve not taken any money from anyone.

They earn money through marketing the biggest league in the world, and they pay lawyers from their own money.

Slow down and think about it. Where do the Premier League get their money? Try hard and you will get there.

You have a think about it. The TV deal is agreed before it  begins. Every club knows exactly how much they get and how much the prize money is worth. How then are they going to take money off PL clubs to pay for lawyers?

maybe stick to women’s football, it’s more your level.

WHAT A PATRONISING cսnt

[goose]

Where does the money to pay the TV deal come from?

 

Various broadcasters around the world.

PL clubs get paid in advance of the season, a fixed amount that’s written into the TV contract. Do you think the PL have reduced this amount to pay for lawyers?

[Mex Martillo]

Where does the money to pay the TV deal come from?
 

[goose]

Who pays the Premier league lawers going toe to toe with Man City lawers? Apparently over 1000 pounds a hour!
Our sad TV money that's fucking who!
Should be going to teams on how they or WE finish. 
Fucking shit show.

The PL pay the lawyers, not us. We don’t pay a penny to the PL. The TV money is set in stone on set term contracts. They’ve not taken any money from anyone.

They earn money through marketing the biggest league in the world, and they pay lawyers from their own money.

Slow down and think about it. Where do the Premier League get their money? Try hard and you will get there.

You have a think about it. The TV deal is agreed before it  begins. Every club knows exactly how much they get and how much the prize money is worth. How then are they going to take money off PL clubs to pay for lawyers?

maybe stick to women’s football, it’s more your level.