They also are not new nor exist in a vacuum. Financial Fair Play regulations were introduced by UEFA in 2010. This built on an existing licensing system that had been around for nearly a decade already and came from a near constant discussion of the destabilizing effect of external money on the market and one that was being felt most troublingly in smaller leagues. The rules were poorly branded because it was never about fair play, but they were brought in to try to mitigate the consequences of Roman spending money he stole from Russian peasants causing a cascade of events that pressures Red Star Belgrade into spending themselves in bankruptcy. European football at large had big flashing waring signs going off about its financial sustainability, even pending financial collapse, and the data show the regulations were unambiguously successful at achieving those aims.
The domestic rules are just an obvious extension of this because it makes no sense to allow clubs to win your competitions with a level of spending that will see them barred from Europe anyway. Everything that has come after the initial FFP rules has just been tweeking around the edges precisely to help clubs like Newcastle and make it less of a closed shop.
This is a grievance that is made up completely out of thin air and requires you think spending regulations were created only once the saudis bought newcastle.
Villa fans moan about it as well that they can’t go and get top players because of PSR rules but their fans don’t acknowledge that they’ve spent a tonne they’ve just been getting it wrong a lot. Last year they spent over £200m on Onana, Maatsen, Malen, Iling-Junior, Dobbin, Barrenechea, Garcia, Disasi (£6m loan fee), Barkley and then taking almost all of Rashford and Asencio’s combined £500k a week salary’s on loan.
Of all of them only one player they signed on a permanent deal made a proper impact on the first team (Onana). It’s not that clubs can’t spend because of PSR it’s that they waste tones of money on middling players rather than target one major signing like Liverpool tend to do.
Well as I said yesterday Newcastle had a net spend of minus 115m and we are on minus 120m, this deal takes them 80m over us and yet apparently they are plucky underdogs while we are buying the league.
Bar Isak they aren’t selling anyone and if this deal happens that will reduce it back to about 100m add Wissa for about 50m and they will have a net spend of about minus 150m compared if we sign Isak to one of about 250m, 100m difference but look over the last 4 windows and that suddenly becomes nothing.
Yet we are buying the league and they are plucky underdogs.
Hope we do the proper preparation required for a fresh approach to make a new bid. That kind of stuff really needs to be well prepared, double, triple, quadruple check before you click send.
( )
Agreed. Although, I suspect that there have been enough behind-the-scenes discussions already that any bid put in is one that they know will be acceptable to Newcastle.
Actually it only has two posts so maybe not though I’ve been following it for a while. I assume his twitter promoted his move over and then like many didn’t move over.
)