that's two poor trolls in one afternoon, do better.
What on earth are you talking about? It appears that you don't seem to understand what the rules are.
All clubs remove allowable expenses from their PSR calculations, why shouldn't Everton.What on earth are you talking about? It appears that you don't seem to understand what the rules are.
There is nothing preventing clubs from simply losing money. The rules are very specific and exclude a whole host of expenses. After deducting all those allowable expenses, there is a limit to what clubs can lose and any breach is the amount over that limit. In Everton's case £16.6m over 3 years.
And I'm not sure what you mean with that last sentence
And finally I'd be interested to hear how many points Spurs, for example, should be docked. Their headline losses over the last 3 years are around £240m. They're not remotely close to breaching PSR rules but obviously that doesn't matter as they've lost "100s of millions".
Ok, as I said you don't understand the rules and pointing that out and attempting to explain the rules to you isn't trolling.
We're not debating whether clubs losing money is a bad thing - read back through my previous posts and you'll see my views on that. We're debating the size of Everton's punishment and the only thing that matters is how big their breach was, not how much their total losses are.
They aren't, no club is ever punished for costs that fall outside FFP/PSR they tend to be things that give no direct sporting advantage, and there is at least some sort of logic to encouraging clubs to spend money on stadiums and training grounds.
Yes, I know no club is punished for costs that fall outside PSR - that was my point when you were pointing to these expenses in relation to Everton. And whether the £105m is a target or leeway, it ultimately doesn't matter. You're allowed to lose that £105m. The only number relevant is the amount over £105m.
Yep and that there is the gripe that many Newcastle fans in particular have. The arbitrary line in the sand that was drawn when they decided to bring in these rules. I don’t really have a problem with it as something definitely had to be done but there isn’t a one size fits all solution and the league needs to protect the football clubs from careless ownership. The premier league and its fans can barely agree on what a handball or a penalty is these days so we are some way off having a PSR rule that suits everyone!
With the punishments for Everton and Forest, I hope we now stand firm and don’t sell our top players(not that I believe we have to) and take the small points deduction we will get.
100% for this as I will go some way to level the playing field, apparently the 2 Manchester clubs and Chelsea were dead against it “surprisingly”
It would mean the likes of Newcastle/Villa/Forest who are trying to catch up would be able to spend more, while those that don’t want to spend more would be under less pressure to sell to balance books “Everton”
Ah, see my edit. This rule is not being proposed in isolation. It's to go alongside the 70% squad cost rule. Newcastle, Villa and Forest won't be able to spend a penny more. It just limits what City (for example) could spend if their revenue ever got so high that 70% was more than 5x Sheffield Utd's tv money.
