i'm new to this channel (just crawled out from under a rock, it seems) and he is incredibly insightful and i'm looking forward to diving through some of the older videos for his take on other topics. To make the mundane interesting (to the layman) is an art form!
Interesting chat. One team that was omitted when you were talking about what's fair in the spirit of the game when Chelsea amortised 9 year deals and sold hotels and car parks to themselves. Definitely not in the spirit of the game. Leicester City would not have been relegated if Everton were deducted points during the season and not deferred. Its the system that's broken to avoid clubs going bust?
I'm far from a Chelsea fan but let's not talk about the spirit of the game. It's a load of nonsense and doesn't exist. This isn't cricket in the 20s. All teams literally cheat on the pitch every week. Clubs are sponsored by fake companies and criminal gangs. It's all nonsense. If the laws allow it you can do it
It's not as difficult as Matt claims. Compared to most commercial law concerning big international companies in multiple areas this is fairly simple stuff. Dates were not properly specified, very simple redrafting necessary.
Yes. I think the "it's too complex" line is a plant by clubs who want to abolish (explicitly or effectively) PSR, and sadly it is seldom combatted in football media because football journalists know... football, not law.
@@Donners329 wrong, what's stopping them doing a Man City is a newer rule brought in during 2021/2022 season relating to fair value sponsorship deals which are now reviewed and approved by a Premier League panel. This stops clubs agreeing inflated deals with sponsors who are affiliated with their owners, meaning they CAN'T just pump additional sponsorship money into the club, thus doping and inflating revenues. Yes, clubs can still have these sponsors, but they can't just pump in £100m+ p/season. Newcastle, as an example, they had to submit their deals with SELA and Noon (Both owned by PIF) to the PL for review and approval. These deals just about bring NUFCS yearly sponsorship revenues in line with clubs like West Ham and Villa, yet they're still way behind the traditional "Big 6" clubs in terms of sponsorship revenue, and absolutely miles off Man City. Biggest issue with this, yes it stopped new money clubs, such as Newcastle & Villa etc, but it wasn't applied retrospectively, meaning it doesn't affect Man City who have done it for years through Etihad and other deals.
The mistake made here in this otherwise excellent video, is that Man City are assumed to be either guilty or not. The matter, with 115 charges, is multi faceted in that the likelihood is that City, at the least, will be found guilty of non cooperation. The nub of the matter, though, is the sponsorship - not mancini and Toure, not the length of the grass etc. If City are found not to have breached the sponsorship allegations, no substantial gain will have accrued to the club and therefore any penalty for other charges which may have been proved is likely to be small because they will not have bought themselves any proper financial advantage. For instance the Mancini and Toure charges involve one million here and there. In the light of City's 2 billion spend, this made virtually no difference to City's spending ability or advantage gained.
Everyone also assumes all of CAS hearing was time barred when CAS literally looked at 70% of the UEFA charges and only 30% were time barred. Of those 70% the sponsorship allegations were seen to be of fair value & there was no evidence of wrongdoing. Effectively the PL's 115 charges of for the 30% time period that CAS could not look into, which I feel will yield the same results. If City were guilty, there would have been atleast something in the 70%, but nothing? That smells of desperation from the FA. But we wait and see.
@@kattphatt Yes. There really ought to be a rule that if a superior tribunal has ruled on a matter, it cannot then be relitigated by an inferior one. For inferior, read the PL. The PL lack of time bar is interesting and I wonder what City's lawyers will make of it. The PL rules appear to be themselves conflicting. One says no time bar whereas another says that the rules are made subject to English law. Both cannot apply if the English law 6 year time bar is taken into account.
I’m a Leicester fan. I was expecting a 10-12 point deduction. We escaped on a technicality of a poorly worded PSR rule. I imagine EPL are already ready to throw the book at us for the next time LCFC break a rule (maybe 23/24 PSR?); and I guess other clubs have got the champagne on ice for that moment! EPL/EFL can talk about “intention”, being ‘letter vs spirit’ of the law etc But EPL have just ok’d Chelsea selling 2 hotels for £77m to a group company, thereby avoiding a breach of PSR. Surely the “intention” of PSR should focus on just football not property? We were relegated at the end of 22/23; isn’t that sufficient self inflicted financial punishment? The new ‘turnover to wage cost’ rule is still going to be a PSR problem for mid table ambitious teams who set out to attract better (but expensive) players/manager who later under perform, sit out their contracts and refuse to be transferred, and help to relegate the team, as happened at LCFC.
There was no law against what Chelsea did so they couldn’t stop it, but are currently trying to pass a law that will stop it in the future. What they ok’d was the price of the hotels, meaning they didn’t hugely inflate it.
Ambition? There's a difference between club ambition and owner's ambition. If the club is ambitious, it should find ways to grow its income so that it can finance its sporting ambition. But owners that want to gain glory in the shortest time will just throw money in. What happens when the owner doesn't want to play with his toy anymore like Everton? If you're an Everton fan,must be fun right? @@kattphatt
I get that the people drafting the rules are never going to be able to write them to cover every possibility and permutation, but a club overspending in a year they get relegated then getting promoted back the next season feels like it shouldn't have been an unforeseen eventuality.
.... if not being a member at the end of the accounting period is reason for the PL PSR rules not being applicable... then surely any sales while you aren't a premier league member can't be considered towards their accounting AS A PL MEMBER.
Reasonability tests are always applied - it is not philosophical. You are also talking about Articles of Association which Clubs sign up to when they become members of the PL. A few legal inaccuracies in this video.
Whether you like or dislike the rules, they are clearly not fit for purpose given teams can sell property to themselves and trade players the way my club Villa have. I'm not criticising clubs doing this stuff just pointing out how ridiculous the rules are. They need rethinking
It’s a nonsense. If it was about sustainability then you can ring fence investment from owners etc. PSR & Squad cost ratio are designed to keep the CL clubs and PL clubs where they are, ensuring no one can break into either long term. Villa & NUFC are in much better financial shape than MUFC but can’t spend half of what they can. You either have a level playing field when all clubs can spend the same or you don’t. These ‘super’ clubs don’t want a level playing field, they want entrenched advantage and that’s why they want clubs punished and why there is fury LCFC find a loop hole but barely a squeak when CFC sell THEMSELVES a hotel or a women’s team.
I remember the Newcastle sale before being approved, there was a notion of if its denied we could just be relegated and get approved in the Championship and the EPL couldnt do anything about it.
That was an incorrect belief though. The PL owner and directors test is an annual check. So if the PL blocked the Newcastle takeover, Newcastle was then relegated, the takeover completed in the Championship and then Newcastle were promoted, the PL would still be able to say Newcastle failed the owner and directors test and force the Newcastle owners to sell.
@@andrewcharlton6080 it would be interesting since they tried to block it and it didn't work after Mike Ashley pushed them into court. The point is that there are many loopholes.
PSR should be focused on debt not turnover. Only that will safeguard the future of clubs if an owner loses interest. In it's current form no owner is allowed to invest to compete so it protects the big clubs and risks the integrity of competition in the league. The playing field is not level.
Stopping man city's in newcastle and aston villa is fine in the case of lcfc the obly solution is a national regulator efl and prem are different conpanies.
Its nonsense that they're in a limbo of championship or premier league. Forest were deducted points INCLUDING issues from the years before they came up?
It’s hard to say “clubs lose loads of money” when smart ownership grows the clubs value exponentially. I’d consider winning an investment into net worth
This is a lose - lose for the Prem. If Leicester go down they could take legal action and argue that they missed out on transfer targets and were disadvantaged unfairly. If Leicester stay up then the teams that go down can argue that they would have survived if the rules had been applied as they were intended.
For me the spirit of this law is to maintain the top 6 status quo. It is subjective. Legal matters are not based on subjective view points or "spirit". It has to be 100 percent specific!.
the PL have lost control of the narrative surrounding PSR it is now common knowledge. Chelsea selling Hotels to themselves and then they can buy them back and it doesn't affect PSR? My team Newcastle having to sell really good young players (Anderson and Minteh) when we have plenty of money already that we can't spend? Clubs selling academy players for the benefit of PSR balance sheets doesn't make any sense. Football is now an Accountancy game and is played on balance sheets and calculators rather than pitches
MANCITY didn't voted for these PSR "rules" tho . Its the other so called "top 4 /5 " teams plus alot of PL teams who Voted for this ridiculous rules , now they are complaining and have issues with it 🙄 .now becuz of of this psr BS alot of clubs decided to sell their talented academy graduates just to satisfy these rules .
@@vector_vector__ who gives a fuck if they or any particular team didn't vote for them, that's not how the league works and never has. It's a democratic system.
Disgrace- blatantly ignore the rules and get away with it. Hopefully this will catch up with them back in the Championship next year. If they weren’t a Premier club they were a Championship club and therefore the breach is even worse.
For me, this PSR bollocks is all ran by SKY etc. If Chelsea for example dropped out the top six and God forbid Liverpool and Manchester United did as well, replaced by say WHU, Newcastle and say Everton. All SKY are thinking is how many subscribers ergo £££ have we lost globally because those clubs aren't competing? SKY and the other broadcasters are driving this bullshit and the Premier league bends over and takes it up the 'arris.
Forest fan. My view. Hated Everton’s punishment before we were involved. Then they targeted us, and the fact it wasn’t sorted with two games to go was just a joke. Happy Leicester are not now wrapped up in this. As the way they do things is farcical. Let’s start the season with the deduction in place. Or transfer embargo. And it’s certainly not a level playing field.
You have a right to your preferences. My opinion is that you will be missing some interesting stuff if you just dismiss them outright. This one for instance is very interesting
PSR needs a rethink. Encouraging teams to sell their best academy graduates is madness. And no team will ever be able to challenge the big six, which affects competition
Infuriating to see that other clubs are "getting away with it" and have continued to spend money on players, at the same time Everton have to scrape the bottom of the barrel, selling their assets and loaning players just to get players enough to get a tea together. Just a few injuries and they have to fill the bench with two goalies and youngsters. Besides, once a scapegoat always one, so if they dare to stretch the rules and loopholes is closed they will be hit with a ton of bricks from Premier League while others are standing around laughing.
The way thing are going i’m starting to lose faith in man city being prosecuted for any of their 115 charges. I’m almost sure they will get away with through some loophole or bad wording.
Absolutely not, it just stops every team doing a Chelsea and spending insane amounts of money on players that aren’t worth it and driving up the market for everyone else
@@HorsefaceKilla- if an owner wants to spend money on their asset. What right do you have to dictate what they can invest? It stifles competition and is driving better players to the Saudi pro league
@@bigboyshit1 Not every owner has unlimited money. You might think PSR is the wrong way to go about it but there should be something that evens the playing field.
@@TheNightMammoth how do you even the playing field when 6 clubs can spend vastly more than the rest of the league? Challenging clubs end up having to sell their best players to the established clubs - creating a league within a league
Scrap this nonsense psr gets fans set against each other ,clubs can't spend money ie Newcastle ,clubs have to sell players ,local lads just to keep onside of the rules .Alan Sugar said that if football stood by proper business rules every club would be shut down ,so as long as a club is viable for billionaire owners who cares .The premier league and the EFL are being run ragged by smarter lawyers ,this is taking away from the game .just enjoy the game ,football has never been fair that is why you have the big six ,plus Newcastle. Most fans dont care , they just want to watch a game .
![[Full] 4 ต่อ 4 Celebrity EP.910 | 22 ก.ย. 67 | one31](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4TR3MVpOiw8/mqdefault.jpg)
Really appreciate the lucid way Matt explains this stuff and creates interesting narratives around what could be super dry topics.
i'm new to this channel (just crawled out from under a rock, it seems) and he is incredibly insightful and i'm looking forward to diving through some of the older videos for his take on other topics. To make the mundane interesting (to the layman) is an art form!
Interesting chat. One team that was omitted when you were talking about what's fair in the spirit of the game when Chelsea amortised 9 year deals and sold hotels and car parks to themselves. Definitely not in the spirit of the game. Leicester City would not have been relegated if Everton were deducted points during the season and not deferred. Its the system that's broken to avoid clubs going bust?
Loopholes will always exist. They are being closed (specifically the amortization loophole has been closed).
I'm far from a Chelsea fan but let's not talk about the spirit of the game. It's a load of nonsense and doesn't exist. This isn't cricket in the 20s. All teams literally cheat on the pitch every week. Clubs are sponsored by fake companies and criminal gangs. It's all nonsense. If the laws allow it you can do it
It's not as difficult as Matt claims. Compared to most commercial law concerning big international companies in multiple areas this is fairly simple stuff. Dates were not properly specified, very simple redrafting necessary.
Hmm, I wonder who's word I'm going to take, experienced journalist Matt Slater or a youtube comment written by someone calling themselves "88klac" 🤔
Yes. I think the "it's too complex" line is a plant by clubs who want to abolish (explicitly or effectively) PSR, and sadly it is seldom combatted in football media because football journalists know... football, not law.
My subtitles had Matt saying "I hate Rogue capital letters". Kind of ironic!
😆
Psr is achieving _exactly_ what it was set up to do, stop the Newcastle's and Aston Villa's from "doing a Leicester"
No it's to stop them doing a man city
Yeah Newcastle buying the title with blood money would really be a win for the rest of the league
Yea there exactly the same 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
PSR started in 2013.
@@Donners329 wrong, what's stopping them doing a Man City is a newer rule brought in during 2021/2022 season relating to fair value sponsorship deals which are now reviewed and approved by a Premier League panel.
This stops clubs agreeing inflated deals with sponsors who are affiliated with their owners, meaning they CAN'T just pump additional sponsorship money into the club, thus doping and inflating revenues. Yes, clubs can still have these sponsors, but they can't just pump in £100m+ p/season.
Newcastle, as an example, they had to submit their deals with SELA and Noon (Both owned by PIF) to the PL for review and approval. These deals just about bring NUFCS yearly sponsorship revenues in line with clubs like West Ham and Villa, yet they're still way behind the traditional "Big 6" clubs in terms of sponsorship revenue, and absolutely miles off Man City.
Biggest issue with this, yes it stopped new money clubs, such as Newcastle & Villa etc, but it wasn't applied retrospectively, meaning it doesn't affect Man City who have done it for years through Etihad and other deals.
The mistake made here in this otherwise excellent video, is that Man City are assumed to be either guilty or not. The matter, with 115 charges, is multi faceted in that the likelihood is that City, at the least, will be found guilty of non cooperation. The nub of the matter, though, is the sponsorship - not mancini and Toure, not the length of the grass etc. If City are found not to have breached the sponsorship allegations, no substantial gain will have accrued to the club and therefore any penalty for other charges which may have been proved is likely to be small because they will not have bought themselves any proper financial advantage. For instance the Mancini and Toure charges involve one million here and there. In the light of City's 2 billion spend, this made virtually no difference to City's spending ability or advantage gained.
✅
Everyone also assumes all of CAS hearing was time barred when CAS literally looked at 70% of the UEFA charges and only 30% were time barred. Of those 70% the sponsorship allegations were seen to be of fair value & there was no evidence of wrongdoing. Effectively the PL's 115 charges of for the 30% time period that CAS could not look into, which I feel will yield the same results. If City were guilty, there would have been atleast something in the 70%, but nothing? That smells of desperation from the FA. But we wait and see.
@@kattphatt Yes. There really ought to be a rule that if a superior tribunal has ruled on a matter, it cannot then be relitigated by an inferior one. For inferior, read the PL. The PL lack of time bar is interesting and I wonder what City's lawyers will make of it. The PL rules appear to be themselves conflicting. One says no time bar whereas another says that the rules are made subject to English law. Both cannot apply if the English law 6 year time bar is taken into account.
I've really enoyed Phil's contributions to the podcast over the last few months. Great addition
I’m a Leicester fan. I was expecting a 10-12 point deduction. We escaped on a technicality of a poorly worded PSR rule.
I imagine EPL are already ready to throw the book at us for the next time LCFC break a rule (maybe 23/24 PSR?); and I guess other clubs have got the champagne on ice for that moment!
EPL/EFL can talk about “intention”, being ‘letter vs spirit’ of the law etc But EPL have just ok’d Chelsea selling 2 hotels for £77m to a group company, thereby avoiding a breach of PSR. Surely the “intention” of PSR should focus on just football not property?
We were relegated at the end of 22/23; isn’t that sufficient self inflicted financial punishment?
The new ‘turnover to wage cost’ rule is still going to be a PSR problem for mid table ambitious teams who set out to attract better (but expensive) players/manager who later under perform, sit out their contracts and refuse to be transferred, and help to relegate the team, as happened at LCFC.
There was no law against what Chelsea did so they couldn’t stop it, but are currently trying to pass a law that will stop it in the future. What they ok’d was the price of the hotels, meaning they didn’t hugely inflate it.
Such an easy fix...demotion occurs on 30 June and promotion on 1 July. That cycle just needs to align with the PSR cycle.
Isn't getting relegated punishment enough? Surely that's the point of a points deduction?
The PSR rules are meant to punish ambition and not really there for clubs financial well-being. People don't want to admit this.
Ambition? There's a difference between club ambition and owner's ambition. If the club is ambitious, it should find ways to grow its income so that it can finance its sporting ambition. But owners that want to gain glory in the shortest time will just throw money in. What happens when the owner doesn't want to play with his toy anymore like Everton? If you're an Everton fan,must be fun right? @@kattphatt
Getting relegated for a year to dodge the PSR violation. Absolute legends.
I get that the people drafting the rules are never going to be able to write them to cover every possibility and permutation, but a club overspending in a year they get relegated then getting promoted back the next season feels like it shouldn't have been an unforeseen eventuality.
.... if not being a member at the end of the accounting period is reason for the PL PSR rules not being applicable... then surely any sales while you aren't a premier league member can't be considered towards their accounting AS A PL MEMBER.
Reasonability tests are always applied - it is not philosophical. You are also talking about Articles of Association which Clubs sign up to when they become members of the PL. A few legal inaccuracies in this video.
I find these so much more enjoyable with Phil on them
It's the rules!!! OK Leicester got off on a technicality, but it's all the PLs fault.
Whether you like or dislike the rules, they are clearly not fit for purpose given teams can sell property to themselves and trade players the way my club Villa have. I'm not criticising clubs doing this stuff just pointing out how ridiculous the rules are. They need rethinking
Wonder what area of "limbo" mam city's lawyers will say they were in?
It’s a nonsense. If it was about sustainability then you can ring fence investment from owners etc. PSR & Squad cost ratio are designed to keep the CL clubs and PL clubs where they are, ensuring no one can break into either long term. Villa & NUFC are in much better financial shape than MUFC but can’t spend half of what they can. You either have a level playing field when all clubs can spend the same or you don’t. These ‘super’ clubs don’t want a level playing field, they want entrenched advantage and that’s why they want clubs punished and why there is fury LCFC find a loop hole but barely a squeak when CFC sell THEMSELVES a hotel or a women’s team.
Get relegated on purpose to avoid PSR??? 🤔😂😂
I remember the Newcastle sale before being approved, there was a notion of if its denied we could just be relegated and get approved in the Championship and the EPL couldnt do anything about it.
That was an incorrect belief though. The PL owner and directors test is an annual check. So if the PL blocked the Newcastle takeover, Newcastle was then relegated, the takeover completed in the Championship and then Newcastle were promoted, the PL would still be able to say Newcastle failed the owner and directors test and force the Newcastle owners to sell.
@@andrewcharlton6080 it would be interesting since they tried to block it and it didn't work after Mike Ashley pushed them into court. The point is that there are many loopholes.
Great podcast! And now deduct 10 points from Everton
Do Everton have any grounds to redress their deduction because of this? It affected them financially last season in terms of PL payout.
No. The issue is purely how PSR impacts the relegated clubs.
PSR should be focused on debt not turnover. Only that will safeguard the future of clubs if an owner loses interest. In it's current form no owner is allowed to invest to compete so it protects the big clubs and risks the integrity of competition in the league. The playing field is not level.
Stopping man city's in newcastle and aston villa is fine in the case of lcfc the obly solution is a national regulator efl and prem are different conpanies.
Its nonsense that they're in a limbo of championship or premier league. Forest were deducted points INCLUDING issues from the years before they came up?
It’s hard to say “clubs lose loads of money” when smart ownership grows the clubs value exponentially. I’d consider winning an investment into net worth
"leicester blitzed that league last season"
err, no we didnt lol
This is a lose - lose for the Prem.
If Leicester go down they could take legal action and argue that they missed out on transfer targets and were disadvantaged unfairly.
If Leicester stay up then the teams that go down can argue that they would have survived if the rules had been applied as they were intended.
Losing control? Don't make me laugh. They are making themselves look like absolute clowns.
Phil !!!
thanks phil
PHIL
PHILLLLLLL
COME BACK PHILLLLLL
WE MISS YOUUUUUU
Leicester should be awarded +30pts by other clubs for showing up the Premier League ! Legends !
Loos at the club debts. Clubs with over 500m in debt and no issues?
Jesus. This is mind numbing. Let's talk about the game
Does spirit of the law not come into anything these days? You find a loophole and that's it these days.
For me the spirit of this law is to maintain the top 6 status quo. It is subjective. Legal matters are not based on subjective view points or "spirit". It has to be 100 percent specific!.
What can efl do if they find anything? Leicester are a premier league team now…. So out of their jurisdiction
the PL have lost control of the narrative surrounding PSR it is now common knowledge. Chelsea selling Hotels to themselves and then they can buy them back and it doesn't affect PSR? My team Newcastle having to sell really good young players (Anderson and Minteh) when we have plenty of money already that we can't spend?
Clubs selling academy players for the benefit of PSR balance sheets doesn't make any sense. Football is now an Accountancy game and is played on balance sheets and calculators rather than pitches
▪︎If PL 115 Accusations unproven
▪︎PL should get away with paying Damages
▪︎PL must be investigated too?🤔
If the 115 chargers are proved then cancel all the city titles and relegate them and fine then as well. Throw the book at the cheating oil club.
Very poor and weak drafting-wise, taking into account no relegated side is ever going to want to forego being recipients of parachute payments.
This is hardly a massive loophole a junior lawyer would have picked this up. That idiot Masters should resign
PSR only protects the Cartel...
Better known as the spiteful Red trio,
@@barrieroberts75 13 clubs voted in favour of bringing in PSR.
MANCITY didn't voted for these PSR "rules" tho . Its the other so called "top 4 /5 " teams plus alot of PL teams who Voted for this ridiculous rules , now they are complaining and have issues with it 🙄 .now becuz of of this psr BS alot of clubs decided to sell their talented academy graduates just to satisfy these rules .
@@vector_vector__ who gives a fuck if they or any particular team didn't vote for them, that's not how the league works and never has. It's a democratic system.
@@barrieroberts75don’t forget silent spurs
Not a great look for Leicester City. Money over morals.
Disgrace- blatantly ignore the rules and get away with it. Hopefully this will catch up with them back in the Championship next year. If they weren’t a Premier club they were a Championship club and therefore the breach is even worse.
For me, this PSR bollocks is all ran by SKY etc.
If Chelsea for example dropped out the top six and God forbid Liverpool and Manchester United did as well, replaced by say WHU, Newcastle and say Everton.
All SKY are thinking is how many subscribers ergo £££ have we lost globally because those clubs aren't competing?
SKY and the other broadcasters are driving this bullshit and the Premier league bends over and takes it up the 'arris.
It’s not run by Sky
Forest fan. My view. Hated Everton’s punishment before we were involved. Then they targeted us, and the fact it wasn’t sorted with two games to go was just a joke.
Happy Leicester are not now wrapped up in this. As the way they do things is farcical.
Let’s start the season with the deduction in place. Or transfer embargo. And it’s certainly not a level playing field.
Football is as bent as a nine Bob note
Me when an Athletic Podcast is uploaded: Hello
Me when that podcast is not Joe, JJ & Jon: Bye
You have a right to your preferences.
My opinion is that you will be missing some interesting stuff if you just dismiss them outright. This one for instance is very interesting
PSR is a joke... Chelsea pissing over the rules
Just look at the Gallagher and Felix swap
PSR needs a rethink. Encouraging teams to sell their best academy graduates is madness. And no team will ever be able to challenge the big six, which affects competition
Infuriating to see that other clubs are "getting away with it" and have continued to spend money on players, at the same time Everton have to scrape the bottom of the barrel, selling their assets and loaning players just to get players enough to get a tea together. Just a few injuries and they have to fill the bench with two goalies and youngsters. Besides, once a scapegoat always one, so if they dare to stretch the rules and loopholes is closed they will be hit with a ton of bricks from Premier League while others are standing around laughing.
How can you say PL lawyers are good lol. The law is an ass but their lawyers fell out its ass 😂
Please keep this presenter over Leventhal 😅
"Who's to say
What's fair to say
and what not to say
Let's ask Dr Dre
Dr Dre I got a question if I may...
Leicester City Lawyers in court
PL has one massive issue no clubs have tested.
PL teams deducting salaries prorarta paid for games in FA Cup, League Cup and UEFA
Typical statist mentality - figure out how to get em next time. It sure seems that the relegation is sufficient.
The way thing are going i’m starting to lose faith in man city being prosecuted for any of their 115 charges. I’m almost sure they will get away with through some loophole or bad wording.
Teams like Leicester might get off on technicalities but in the eyes of the fans and public opinion they are guilty
PSR has put shackles on the league and held it back
Absolutely not, it just stops every team doing a Chelsea and spending insane amounts of money on players that aren’t worth it and driving up the market for everyone else
@@HorsefaceKilla- if an owner wants to spend money on their asset. What right do you have to dictate what they can invest?
It stifles competition and is driving better players to the Saudi pro league
@@bigboyshit1 Not every owner has unlimited money. You might think PSR is the wrong way to go about it but there should be something that evens the playing field.
@@TheNightMammoth how do you even the playing field when 6 clubs can spend vastly more than the rest of the league? Challenging clubs end up having to sell their best players to the established clubs - creating a league within a league
Nah there have to be some controls. Nation states being able to spend whatever they want wouldn't be good. These rules are just not fit for purpose
Scrap this nonsense psr gets fans set against each other ,clubs can't spend money ie Newcastle ,clubs have to sell players ,local lads just to keep onside of the rules .Alan Sugar said that if football stood by proper business rules every club would be shut down ,so as long as a club is viable for billionaire owners who cares .The premier league and the EFL are being run ragged by smarter lawyers ,this is taking away from the game .just enjoy the game ,football has never been fair that is why you have the big six ,plus Newcastle. Most fans dont care , they just want to watch a game .