camberwell fox
Well-Known Member
Well, at least naive. Save adoring for Homer
Leicester and PSR for 23/24
- Thread starter Brown Nose
- Start date
This page may contain links to companies such as eBay and Amazon. As an affiliate of these sites I may earn commission if you click the link and make a purchase
SilverFox
Well-Known Member
Oh joy.
homer
Well-Known Member
After the last complete ****ing shambles, how on earth have our collection of ****wits gone and let this happen again?
No fancy schmancy lawyer or filing accounts late shenanigans is gonna get us out of this one
They wont just throw the book at us, they'll throw the whole ****ing library
Can someone break this down for me? Does this mean we're 12m over PSR?
homer
Well-Known Member
Feidlimid
Member
Yep, we didn't have a hotel to sell. At an inflated price. To another member of the same group. Man City wish they'd thought of that one. We just pissed about with sponsorship deals for Top's underpants.
Brown Nose
Well-Known Member
Important to note that it's an estimate.
Swiss Ramble is excellent at his job but has had to make several assumptions that may not be entirely correct.
The main takeaway is that all the public football finance people seem to think that we're the club most likely to be charged next week.
M17TT C
Well-Known Member
Yep, Swiss ramble won't have seen the books, unless someone at the club or the PL is leaking them but that would be a serious breach of confidentiality.
They are the best so they are probably fairly accurate in their calculations but the club are confident they have complied as before so I will reserve judgement until any punishment is upheld.
There will probably be another round of legal back and forth after the initial decision next week and even then it still wont be crystal clear.
I'm predicting we will argue that the Golding transfer was a youth cost and not included in PSR and other equally grey areas.
Shame we couldn't just sell a reserve goalkeeper to Newcastle for £20m like Forest did.
They are the best so they are probably fairly accurate in their calculations but the club are confident they have complied as before so I will reserve judgement until any punishment is upheld.
There will probably be another round of legal back and forth after the initial decision next week and even then it still wont be crystal clear.
I'm predicting we will argue that the Golding transfer was a youth cost and not included in PSR and other equally grey areas.
Shame we couldn't just sell a reserve goalkeeper to Newcastle for £20m like Forest did.
Fox Fan
Well-Known Member
Didn't Villa and Everton do something similar?
M17TT C
Well-Known Member
pork pie fox
Well-Known Member
Which all goes to show what a farce it is. Clubs are spending money, just accounting for it in such a way that it still fits these calculations, which defeats the object of it.
Brown Nose
Well-Known Member
Nobody will convince me that we're not as bad as anyone at fiddling our books.
So many of our deals for players, staff payments, dodgy sponsors, KP sponsoring Seagrave, etc. all stink to high heaven.
The thing is that we're so bad at accounting that we even fail when we cheat.
pork pie fox
Well-Known Member
I agree. I'm not suggesting that we're being unfairly treated or anything, I'm just making the point that the rules are meant to control spending and all they're doing is making teams, including us, spend in such a way that it can be accounted for in a certain way. It's an accounting exercise, rather than a proper control.
Feidlimid
Member
Accounts will be filed with Companies House. They'll give a good idea of our revenue & spending and Swiss ramble (or whoever) could make a judgement from there. I would imagine however the club will provide a different statement (more detailed, differently categorised, etc) to the PL for the purposes of PSR assessment.
As I've said elsewhere, the club seem confident that they'll be ok so maybe the numbers they gave to the PL will account for the apparent £12m overspend as an allowable expenditure. Up to the PL I guess as to whether they'll buy it but I dont suspect they'll look to offer us latitude. We've pissed through their letterbox methinks.
M17TT C
Well-Known Member
Isn't this for last season though, as part of the 3 year rolling total?
Accounts at companies house only go up to June 23.
Feidlimid
Member
No idea. I've not looked and dont know the latest filing dates. Just saying p&l numbers are a matter of public record and can be assessed by whoever. Point being, numbers needn't necessarily be leaked to arrive at a judgement.
M17TT C
Well-Known Member
But PSR is based on the last 3 seasons losses and only the first 2 years accounts are publicly available??
My point is that I don't think last seasons accounts are public info yet, so there would be quite a lot of assumptions for that year in the calculations from Swiss Ramble etc.
FOX Franks
Well-Known Member
£187m loss and we still put Vestergaard and Ward on long termers. ****sake.
Feidlimid
Member
I'd imagine so, yes. Assumptions generally. Ditto other club's figures. I've no idea if there are other sources of info (interim reports etc) but I'd say these assessments have some basis in validity even if caveated due to the assumptions.
| P | Pld | Pts | |
| 1 | Liverpool | 19 | 46 |
| 2 | Arsenal | 20 | 40 |
| 3 | Nottm F | 20 | 40 |
| 4 | Chelsea | 20 | 36 |
| 5 | Newcastle | 20 | 35 |
| 6 | Manchester C | 20 | 34 |
| 7 | Bournemouth | 20 | 33 |
| 8 | Aston Villa | 20 | 32 |
| 9 | Fulham | 20 | 30 |
| 10 | Brighton | 20 | 28 |
| 11 | Brentford | 20 | 27 |
| 12 | Tottenham | 20 | 24 |
| 13 | Manchester U | 20 | 23 |
| 14 | West Ham | 20 | 23 |
| 15 | Palace | 20 | 21 |
| 16 | Everton | 19 | 17 |
| 17 | Wolves | 20 | 16 |
| 18 | Ipswich | 20 | 16 |
| 19 | Leicester | 20 | 14 |
| 20 | Southampton | 20 | 6 |
