Iskaral Pust Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 Or Salah has made it clear that he’ll reject any transfer and sign a pre-contract with a foreign team in January. Any in-demand player entering the final year of their contract has the power. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigFatCoward Posted April 29 Author Share Posted April 29 (edited) Spending cap in place in PL from 25/26, it will hugely reward well run clubs with good scouting and a proper manager. it should also be easier for clubs to know exactly where they stand. It wouldn't curtail top clubs spending much, the cap based on current figures would be £518 million a year, with only Chelsea falling foul and Man City just underneath, but it will increase the amount smaller clubs can spend to be competitive. It will both massively benefit us, and impede us weirdly. Edited April 29 by BigFatCoward Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Consigliere Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 A Horse Named Stranger, Spockydog, baxus and 3 others 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Consigliere Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 1 hour ago, BigFatCoward said: Spending cap in place in PL from 25/26, it will hugely reward well run clubs with good scouting and a proper manager. it should also be easier for clubs to know exactly where they stand. It wouldn't curtail top clubs spending much, the cap based on current figures would be £518 million a year, with only Chelsea falling foul and Man City just underneath, but it will increase the amount smaller clubs can spend to be competitive. It will both massively benefit us, and impede us weirdly. I don't think this will be the case. Clubs will still have to comply with the upcoming squad cost rules which will replace PSR from 2025/2026 which limits clubs to spending a maximum of 85% of their total revenue on wages, transfer payments and agents’ fees - many of the smaller clubs wage/revenue ratios alone are already close to or over that limit. For clubs competing in European competitions, they will have to comply with even stricter squad cost rules (80% next season and 70% after that). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spockydog Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Cambodia Posted April 30 Share Posted April 30 (edited) 9 hours ago, BigFatCoward said: Spending cap in place in PL from 25/26, it will hugely reward well run clubs with good scouting and a proper manager. it should also be easier for clubs to know exactly where they stand. It wouldn't curtail top clubs spending much, the cap based on current figures would be £518 million a year, with only Chelsea falling foul and Man City just underneath, but it will increase the amount smaller clubs can spend to be competitive. It will both massively benefit us, and impede us weirdly. I thought the whole Boehly strategy was to pay relatively low wages on stupidly-long contracts? Edited April 30 by House Cambodia Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigFatCoward Posted April 30 Author Share Posted April 30 11 hours ago, Consigliere said: I don't think this will be the case. Clubs will still have to comply with the upcoming squad cost rules which will replace PSR from 2025/2026 which limits clubs to spending a maximum of 85% of their total revenue on wages, transfer payments and agents’ fees - many of the smaller clubs wage/revenue ratios alone are already close to or over that limit. For clubs competing in European competitions, they will have to comply with even stricter squad cost rules (80% next season and 70% after that). So what's the point of the announcement? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Horse Named Stranger Posted April 30 Share Posted April 30 12 hours ago, Consigliere said: I don't think this will be the case. Clubs will still have to comply with the upcoming squad cost rules which will replace PSR from 2025/2026 which limits clubs to spending a maximum of 85% of their total revenue on wages, transfer payments and agents’ fees - many of the smaller clubs wage/revenue ratios alone are already close to or over that limit. For clubs competing in European competitions, they will have to comply with even stricter squad cost rules (80% next season and 70% after that). Their is the key word there. My understanding is, that it will no longer be tied to the revenue of the individual club in question. Had the new rules been in place this season, it would have capped spending at £ 518m. (essentially 5x what Southampton (smallest amount of the involved clubs) gets from the central marketing agreement). Three clubs voted against it. The Manchester clubs and *drumroll* Aston Villa. United is apparently worried about the comptitiveness of the EPL (yes, spending money on players like the proverbial drunk sailor in a brothel has really made United competitive on the European stage). The PFA is, let's say critical, of it, coz it would effectively translate into a salary cap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Horse Named Stranger Posted April 30 Share Posted April 30 (edited) 5 hours ago, House Cambodia said: I thought the whole Boehly strategy was to pay relatively low wages on stupidly-long contracts? Pay what would be relatively low wages for World Class players. Relatively low wages for World Class Players can (and in this case do) mean big payday for distinctively not World Class Players. So in a best case scenario, you get next gen Neymar on a 10m p.a. contract, which would be great deal. When you end up paying 10m p.a. to Mudryk that's distinctively less great. Again, the Boehly model was/is essentially a gamble on the future with blue chip prospects, and the way it looks this gamble is not playing out well for Chelsea FC. Palmer has been the only clear hit on the transfer market thus far. Edited April 30 by A Horse Named Stranger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Consigliere Posted April 30 Share Posted April 30 2 hours ago, A Horse Named Stranger said: Their is the key word there. My understanding is, that it will no longer be tied to the revenue of the individual club in question. Had the new rules been in place this season, it would have capped spending at £ 518m. (essentially 5x what Southampton (smallest amount of the involved clubs) gets from the central marketing agreement). Three clubs voted against it. The Manchester clubs and *drumroll* Aston Villa. United is apparently worried about the comptitiveness of the EPL (yes, spending money on players like the proverbial drunk sailor in a brothel has really made United competitive on the European stage). The PFA is, let's say critical, of it, coz it would effectively translate into a salary cap. Squad cost rules ties spending to the revenues of individual clubs while the anchoring rule fixes a ceiling on that spending. It's also worth noting that the ratio of spending compared to the bottom club's earnings had not been agreed yet. To the point I originally responded to: there's nothing to suggest that the new anchoring rule would allow smaller clubs to spend more money since PSR will still be in place next season and the squad cost rules replacing PSR in 2025/2026. A Horse Named Stranger 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Horse Named Stranger Posted April 30 Share Posted April 30 Yeah, but it would still mean thatthe big boys can spend (slightly?) less and thus narrowing the gap to the poorer clubs somewhat. Nobody's arguing about Bournemouth suddenly spending money on par with United, City, Liverpool etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Consigliere Posted April 30 Share Posted April 30 (edited) This doesn't narrow the gap to any meaningful degree though. At the end of the day, these rules are there to ensure financial sustainability and have nothing to do with attempting to level the playing field. Oh, and just to clarify: the anchoring ratio will be tied to broadcasting revenue specifically and not gross revenue of the bottom club's earnings. So if the big spenders want a higher cap then they need to send more broadcasting money to the lowest earners. It doesn't even need to be a generous amount since even a 5 million increase will probably add 25-30 million to the cap. Edited April 30 by Consigliere Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Consigliere Posted April 30 Share Posted April 30 In a bid to solve the injury problems they've suffered this season, Brighton have moved to recruit Frankfurt's Head of Medical, Prof. Florian Pfab, and have agreed to pay Frankfurt around €250k in compensation. Apparently Frankfurt have been one of the teams with the fewest muscle injuries under Prof. Pfab's watch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Cambodia Posted April 30 Share Posted April 30 27 minutes ago, Consigliere said: In a bid to solve the injury problems they've suffered this season, Brighton have moved to recruit Frankfurt's Head of Medical, Prof. Florian Pfab, and have agreed to pay Frankfurt around €250k in compensation. Apparently Frankfurt have been one of the teams with the fewest muscle injuries under Prof. Pfab's watch. Brighton Bargain Recruitment Department strikes again! AncalagonTheBlack and Spockydog 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spockydog Posted April 30 Share Posted April 30 Speaking of injuries, for the first season I can remember, we've managed to get through the campaign without at least one of our best players being out for a sustained period of time because of injury. It's been a massive factor in our success. *touches wood* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rorshach Posted April 30 Share Posted April 30 So ... Administration is a possibility this season. Figures. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ljkeane Posted April 30 Share Posted April 30 (edited) 777 Partners seem dodgy as fuck. When you consider all the sketchy owners football clubs have had how unreliable do you have to be for the Premier League not to sign off on you? So it's probably not a bad thing they don't seem to be taking over but the problem is Everton now owe them about £200 million apparently. Edited April 30 by ljkeane Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AncalagonTheBlack Posted April 30 Share Posted April 30 Yes,sell Salah but keep dumb and dumber. Someone put up a compilation of all the misses from Diaz and Darwin, all passes from Mo what should have been assists! It quite funny though! Starts at 30:43 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rorshach Posted April 30 Share Posted April 30 2 hours ago, ljkeane said: 777 Partners seem dodgy as fuck. When you consider all the sketchy owners football clubs have had how unreliable do you have to be for the Premier League not to sign off on you? So it's probably not a bad thing they don't seem to be taking over but the problem is Everton now owe them about £200 million apparently. Seems like a heads you win, tails I lose situation for Everton right now. No doubt Moshiri has been bad news all round. Good thing if we don't go from bad to 777, but the interim there could potentially kill us off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Horse Named Stranger Posted April 30 Share Posted April 30 Yeah selling Salah is overreacting by parts of the media. Salah has not been in good form since his injury lay off. Klopp thus put him on the bench instead of the starting XI. Salah was unhappy about not starting that game. Liverpool will deal with it internally. If Salah contiues to act up, I can see him getting sanctioned sold, but chances are that this is effectively a non-story. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.