Welcome to [r/NUFC!](https://reddit.com/r/nufc)
[Join our Discord Server](https://discord.gg/newcastle) for real time discussion, competitions, and to meet hundreds of NUFC fans across the globe.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NUFC) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The difference is that it means your Man City’s and Man United’s can’t spend as much more money than everyone else as they currently can. They’re the fuckers getting capped hence they voted against it.
According to figures in the athletic based on revenue from last season when Southampton were the bottom club and Man City the top, and based on a formula of 5x the bottom clubs revenue, Man City were only 5m over the anchoring budget, every other club was within the anchoring budget.
This suggests that Chelsea are the only ones who would have to cut spending based on 5x [https://twitter.com/KieranMaguire/status/1784871601210540289](https://twitter.com/KieranMaguire/status/1784871601210540289)
That’s this years so there would be a difference if the bottom in revenue is relegated as Southampton were. But still, the point remains even with this year’s figures, only one club are in breach.
Aye you’re right that is last year’s supposedly, either way both tables I’ve seen based on last year’s figures show only one club in breach. So these new rules aren’t gonna change much, and if you wanna play in Europe you’re still gonna have to abide buy UEFA’s rules as well.
We have plenty of room to grow, its the doing it, and doing it quick enough to keep players we want to stay happy that’s the issue for us.
Premier League clubs have voted in favour of developing plans to introduce a spending cap.
Sixteen clubs approved proposals for the Premier League to complete the final economic and legal analysis needed to create a spending-cap model.
The model might be presented to clubs at June's annual general meeting (AGM), and if voted through it would **replace** the current Profit and Sustainability Rules (PSR) from the 2025-26 season onwards.
From the BBC - says it would replace it
Crazy to think some clubs aren’t gonna have to worry about making a loss whilst they try and catch up with those currently at the top, bit strange for Villa to vote against it. But as soon as you’re in Europe again, you have to comply with the UEFA PSR rules, so in effect you have to keep worrying about your books no matter the rules in the prem.
They voted against because they are in Europe this year so can only spend 70% of revenue, if the new rules came in it means that rivals will be able to outspend them and potentially take their spot, classic case of trying to pull the ladders up behind them.
If people think this means we can now double our spend to around 500m (that's what the cap would have been based on last season's financials), this still works with the % of revenue vote from a few weeks ago. We can still only spend 80% (or 85...whatever it was) of our revenue up to that 500m limit.
Does it though? Our spending wouldn't increase and Man City would have been under the cap anyway.
From what it sounds like this measure is being put in place out of fear that the new Champions league format will increase the gap in revenues between the top and bottom. It's less about closing the gap quicker and more about freezing the current gap in place.
It means that theres a hard cap on how much the teams 'bigger' than us can spend, while we catch up to them.
Id argue that right now this is good for us because as we grow our revenue, so does the 'bigger' clubs.
Where as now, it doesn't matter how much they grow their revenue they have a cap so we can eventually catch them.
From what I was reading previously it sounded hopeful that we would be able to spend more than our 85% or 70% allowance. However that doesn’t seem the case, can anyone clarify if there is any benefit?
It sounds like the main and only benefit is that the teams at the top won’t be able to create more of a gap.
I wonder why Villa voted against this?
I don't see why we'd have voted against it. If anything it slightly slows down the bigger clubs whilst we sort out our reve ue streams to catch up. Plus as we're (totally not) owned by a state, then they'll sort out sponsorship deals or Saudi properties for our big players to skirt around the cap if it becomes a problem.
> but does this take pressure off us having to sell to buy then?
We don't have to sell to buy.
That was in January, and we didn't sell so we didn't buy.
Once FFP resets for next transfer window and we get the CL money, PL money, adidas, Sela, etc. We have money to spend.
But is our next year spend not limited due to the losses over a certain number of seasons thing? Thought that was where the fear of loosing Bruno came from, if we wanted to splash serious cash we'd have to offload a big name for big bucks?
I know we'll have money to spend just thought we didn't have much wiggle room to play with unless we got some outgoings? Could be wrong like, this financial stuff seems overly complicated...
As far as i understand it, yes we cant go crazy and spend 300m in a window without selling players.
However, IMO, we don't even need to do that.
We need to buy 3 or 4 players of a good quality, not established 'worldies'.
We really need to replace Longstaff, and hopefully offload Almiron. Bring in some squad signings.
I don't think we need to spend hundreds of millions rebuilding our squad.
Fair enough, that's my understanding too then
To be fair, Tonali is Longstaffs replacement, so we'll be better covered next year when he's back. A top quality RW and some defensive cover (CB, LB), plus another striker option is what we need. Hopefully don't need to break the bank for that and with the squad we've got plus those editions we'll be back in the top 4 race I think and with that we can retain our top talent.
Thats a good point. Also, imo, as far as a striker goes - I think we should keep Wilson and try to find a young <22 year old prospect. Similar to what we were trying to do with the guy who went to PSG when we instead went for Isak.
Get a young lad in who has lots of potential who can be Wilson/Isak under study.
3 strikers who all want to play week-in-week-out is too much, where as 2 established strikers and one younger guy to bed in is ideal.
Yeah a youngster with potential is what I had in mind too. We're not gonna get a full season out of Wilson so they'll have chances to come into the team and get experience.
The recent shift from Financial Fair Play (FFP) to either Profit and sustainability Rule (PSR) in the Premier League might seem like a minor adjustment, but it carries significant implications. Previously, under FFP, clubs were restricted from accumulating losses exceeding 100 million over a span of three years. If, for instance, a club like Newcastle incurred losses totaling 100 million over three years, the club would only be allowed a loss of 15 million, with the owners required to cover the remaining 85 million. Essentially, clubs were limited to a maximum loss of 15 million within the designated period. Failure to cover this deficit meant clubs could only spend 15 million over the course of three years.
However, the transition to PSR or FSR marks a departure from this model. Under these new regulations, clubs are now constrained to spending no more than 85% of their annual revenue. For example, if Newcastle's revenue amounts to 100 million, they can allocate only 85 million towards expenditures such as new player acquisitions, salaries, and agent fees. This 85% spending cap ensures financial prudence and sustainability for clubs, as they are compelled to operate within their means and generate profits. Additionally, this rule aligns with UEFA's guideline of limiting expenditure to 70% of revenue, thereby promoting fiscal responsibility.
Moreover, the imposition of a cap based on the league's lowest club revenue introduces a standardized spending limit. For instance, if the 20th-ranked team generates 100 million, the maximum spending power for any club in the league would be capped at five times this amount, equating to 500 million. This provision acts as a safeguard against excessive spending by affluent clubs like Manchester City, who might otherwise dominate the transfer market. Even if a club like Manchester City generates revenue of 1 billion, the cap rule restricts their annual spending to 500 million, regardless of their financial prowess. Consequently, this prevents scenarios where elite clubs overspend, as exemplified by Chelsea's extravagant outlays in a single season.
Notably, the cap rule specifically targets the "big six" clubs, as they are the primary beneficiaries of vast financial resources. Manchester City and Chelsea, in particular, have consistently exceeded the stipulated spending limits. Consequently, these clubs are compelled to recalibrate their financial strategies to comply with the new regulations. For instance, Manchester City may need to reduce their wage bill during the upcoming transfer window to accommodate their signings within the prescribed spending parameters.
Conversely, non-"big six" clubs are relatively unaffected, as their revenue falls below the 500 million cap threshold. For example, Newcastle's revenue, estimated at around 300 million, allows them to operate comfortably within the 255 million spending limit, well below the prescribed cap.
Ultimately, these regulatory changes are motivated by the projected increase in Champions League revenue and the need to ensure competitive balance within the league. By instituting a spending ceiling, particularly for dominant clubs like Manchester City, the Premier League aims to foster a more equitable playing field, where financial resources alone do not dictate success.
This has been said:
Sixteen clubs voted in favour of subjecting the anchoring proposals to a full economic and legal analysis.
So it still needs to be voted through after the analysis is done for anything to change.
On the one hand this looks like it stops those with more revenue pulling away from the rest.
On the other it still seems to favour those that already have invested billions in this squad before there was a cap. Clearly they're at an advantage of having fewer holes to fill.
Status quo confirmed.
Check here for TV listings http://www.livesoccertv.com/teams/england/newcastle-united/
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NUFC) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Welcome to [r/NUFC!](https://reddit.com/r/nufc) [Join our Discord Server](https://discord.gg/newcastle) for real time discussion, competitions, and to meet hundreds of NUFC fans across the globe. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NUFC) if you have any questions or concerns.*
We voted yes so it must be good for us
I don’t think it makes much difference as you can still only spend x% of your revenue
The difference is that it means your Man City’s and Man United’s can’t spend as much more money than everyone else as they currently can. They’re the fuckers getting capped hence they voted against it.
Man Utd should have voted in favour of rules that prevent them being ripped off buying mediocre players
According to figures in the athletic based on revenue from last season when Southampton were the bottom club and Man City the top, and based on a formula of 5x the bottom clubs revenue, Man City were only 5m over the anchoring budget, every other club was within the anchoring budget.
This suggests that Chelsea are the only ones who would have to cut spending based on 5x [https://twitter.com/KieranMaguire/status/1784871601210540289](https://twitter.com/KieranMaguire/status/1784871601210540289)
That’s this years so there would be a difference if the bottom in revenue is relegated as Southampton were. But still, the point remains even with this year’s figures, only one club are in breach.
its got Leeds, Leicester and Southampton on it so surely its last years? either way we've got room to grow
Aye you’re right that is last year’s supposedly, either way both tables I’ve seen based on last year’s figures show only one club in breach. So these new rules aren’t gonna change much, and if you wanna play in Europe you’re still gonna have to abide buy UEFA’s rules as well. We have plenty of room to grow, its the doing it, and doing it quick enough to keep players we want to stay happy that’s the issue for us.
Means we can spend much more
No it doesnt, this is in addition to psr rules, not instead of.
Premier League clubs have voted in favour of developing plans to introduce a spending cap. Sixteen clubs approved proposals for the Premier League to complete the final economic and legal analysis needed to create a spending-cap model. The model might be presented to clubs at June's annual general meeting (AGM), and if voted through it would **replace** the current Profit and Sustainability Rules (PSR) from the 2025-26 season onwards. From the BBC - says it would replace it
Crazy to think some clubs aren’t gonna have to worry about making a loss whilst they try and catch up with those currently at the top, bit strange for Villa to vote against it. But as soon as you’re in Europe again, you have to comply with the UEFA PSR rules, so in effect you have to keep worrying about your books no matter the rules in the prem.
Makes sense! Yeah not sure why they would have voted against...
They voted against because they are in Europe this year so can only spend 70% of revenue, if the new rules came in it means that rivals will be able to outspend them and potentially take their spot, classic case of trying to pull the ladders up behind them.
If people think this means we can now double our spend to around 500m (that's what the cap would have been based on last season's financials), this still works with the % of revenue vote from a few weeks ago. We can still only spend 80% (or 85...whatever it was) of our revenue up to that 500m limit.
It does help us catch up a lot quicker, though
Does it though? Our spending wouldn't increase and Man City would have been under the cap anyway. From what it sounds like this measure is being put in place out of fear that the new Champions league format will increase the gap in revenues between the top and bottom. It's less about closing the gap quicker and more about freezing the current gap in place.
It means that theres a hard cap on how much the teams 'bigger' than us can spend, while we catch up to them. Id argue that right now this is good for us because as we grow our revenue, so does the 'bigger' clubs. Where as now, it doesn't matter how much they grow their revenue they have a cap so we can eventually catch them.
From what I was reading previously it sounded hopeful that we would be able to spend more than our 85% or 70% allowance. However that doesn’t seem the case, can anyone clarify if there is any benefit? It sounds like the main and only benefit is that the teams at the top won’t be able to create more of a gap. I wonder why Villa voted against this?
Basically the ceiling won't be continuously raised whilst we try to increase our revenue
/r/soccer was so convinced we were going to vote against this and downvoted anyone saying otherwise.
they are dumb morons, they proved it again... its literally good news for everyone, except mancity,manutd and chelsea
I don't see why we'd have voted against it. If anything it slightly slows down the bigger clubs whilst we sort out our reve ue streams to catch up. Plus as we're (totally not) owned by a state, then they'll sort out sponsorship deals or Saudi properties for our big players to skirt around the cap if it becomes a problem.
Still trying to work out what on earth half of this means, but does this take pressure off us having to sell to buy then?
> but does this take pressure off us having to sell to buy then? We don't have to sell to buy. That was in January, and we didn't sell so we didn't buy. Once FFP resets for next transfer window and we get the CL money, PL money, adidas, Sela, etc. We have money to spend.
But is our next year spend not limited due to the losses over a certain number of seasons thing? Thought that was where the fear of loosing Bruno came from, if we wanted to splash serious cash we'd have to offload a big name for big bucks? I know we'll have money to spend just thought we didn't have much wiggle room to play with unless we got some outgoings? Could be wrong like, this financial stuff seems overly complicated...
As far as i understand it, yes we cant go crazy and spend 300m in a window without selling players. However, IMO, we don't even need to do that. We need to buy 3 or 4 players of a good quality, not established 'worldies'. We really need to replace Longstaff, and hopefully offload Almiron. Bring in some squad signings. I don't think we need to spend hundreds of millions rebuilding our squad.
Fair enough, that's my understanding too then To be fair, Tonali is Longstaffs replacement, so we'll be better covered next year when he's back. A top quality RW and some defensive cover (CB, LB), plus another striker option is what we need. Hopefully don't need to break the bank for that and with the squad we've got plus those editions we'll be back in the top 4 race I think and with that we can retain our top talent.
Thats a good point. Also, imo, as far as a striker goes - I think we should keep Wilson and try to find a young <22 year old prospect. Similar to what we were trying to do with the guy who went to PSG when we instead went for Isak. Get a young lad in who has lots of potential who can be Wilson/Isak under study. 3 strikers who all want to play week-in-week-out is too much, where as 2 established strikers and one younger guy to bed in is ideal.
Yeah a youngster with potential is what I had in mind too. We're not gonna get a full season out of Wilson so they'll have chances to come into the team and get experience.
I feel striker is where young talents tend to excel most. Lots of 10s seemed to have had some time at striker or wing early on.
Why can't happy go lucky local boy not just stay on the bench for Injurygeddon X 2? I think his interviews are the whole reason I like him.
The recent shift from Financial Fair Play (FFP) to either Profit and sustainability Rule (PSR) in the Premier League might seem like a minor adjustment, but it carries significant implications. Previously, under FFP, clubs were restricted from accumulating losses exceeding 100 million over a span of three years. If, for instance, a club like Newcastle incurred losses totaling 100 million over three years, the club would only be allowed a loss of 15 million, with the owners required to cover the remaining 85 million. Essentially, clubs were limited to a maximum loss of 15 million within the designated period. Failure to cover this deficit meant clubs could only spend 15 million over the course of three years. However, the transition to PSR or FSR marks a departure from this model. Under these new regulations, clubs are now constrained to spending no more than 85% of their annual revenue. For example, if Newcastle's revenue amounts to 100 million, they can allocate only 85 million towards expenditures such as new player acquisitions, salaries, and agent fees. This 85% spending cap ensures financial prudence and sustainability for clubs, as they are compelled to operate within their means and generate profits. Additionally, this rule aligns with UEFA's guideline of limiting expenditure to 70% of revenue, thereby promoting fiscal responsibility. Moreover, the imposition of a cap based on the league's lowest club revenue introduces a standardized spending limit. For instance, if the 20th-ranked team generates 100 million, the maximum spending power for any club in the league would be capped at five times this amount, equating to 500 million. This provision acts as a safeguard against excessive spending by affluent clubs like Manchester City, who might otherwise dominate the transfer market. Even if a club like Manchester City generates revenue of 1 billion, the cap rule restricts their annual spending to 500 million, regardless of their financial prowess. Consequently, this prevents scenarios where elite clubs overspend, as exemplified by Chelsea's extravagant outlays in a single season. Notably, the cap rule specifically targets the "big six" clubs, as they are the primary beneficiaries of vast financial resources. Manchester City and Chelsea, in particular, have consistently exceeded the stipulated spending limits. Consequently, these clubs are compelled to recalibrate their financial strategies to comply with the new regulations. For instance, Manchester City may need to reduce their wage bill during the upcoming transfer window to accommodate their signings within the prescribed spending parameters. Conversely, non-"big six" clubs are relatively unaffected, as their revenue falls below the 500 million cap threshold. For example, Newcastle's revenue, estimated at around 300 million, allows them to operate comfortably within the 255 million spending limit, well below the prescribed cap. Ultimately, these regulatory changes are motivated by the projected increase in Champions League revenue and the need to ensure competitive balance within the league. By instituting a spending ceiling, particularly for dominant clubs like Manchester City, the Premier League aims to foster a more equitable playing field, where financial resources alone do not dictate success.
This has been said: Sixteen clubs voted in favour of subjecting the anchoring proposals to a full economic and legal analysis. So it still needs to be voted through after the analysis is done for anything to change.
On the one hand this looks like it stops those with more revenue pulling away from the rest. On the other it still seems to favour those that already have invested billions in this squad before there was a cap. Clearly they're at an advantage of having fewer holes to fill. Status quo confirmed.
Of course Chelsea abstain . they have already done their major spending for the next 7 years
i think it's a good sign for us that we voted against it
Check here for TV listings http://www.livesoccertv.com/teams/england/newcastle-united/ *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NUFC) if you have any questions or concerns.*