.png)
2 weeks ago
13 ARTICLE AD
This is excellent on PSR and the Newcastle United owners.
As well as the Aston Villa owners.
Plus of course, the Nottingham Forest owner.
Indeed, almost any owner(s) of a Premier League club showing any ambition.
Martin Samuel writing in The Times – 4 November 2024:
Martin Samuel on the Newcastle United owners and their situation as well as Premier League clubs (who are ambitious in any way) overall:
‘What PSR stops is the likes of Forest, or Brighton, or even Brentford, getting too good. And Newcastle United, of course. Particularly Newcastle United.
After Alexander Isak scored the winning goal against Arsenal on Saturday, he was talked of as having passed his audition, because Isak is the striker Arsenal manager Mikel Arteta has his eyes on to bolster his forward line and relieve Kai Havertz.
Yet why should a club that is backed by the wealth of Saudi Arabia have to sell their best goalscorer to Arsenal?
It’s because profitability and sustainability requires Newcastle to pretend they are poor.
It keeps them exactly where the elite wants them: tenth, at present, so that their finest players become frustrated and wish to leave. And where would they go? To the established elite, the ones who shape the rules to ensure they stay at the top — unless an upstart disruptor such as Nottingham Forest comes along and spoils it.
Newcastle, like Forest before them, may need to sell so they can buy. Yet selling could strengthen a rival, so the impact of buying has a diminished effect.
Clever, isn’t it?
And all because those elite entities were so unhappy about what almost happened to Portsmouth, when they nearly went bust, but didn’t, 14 years ago. They still haven’t got over it, poor lambs. That’s why they vote for these rules to ensure no club outside the Super League six ever attempts ambition again.’
Martin Samuel on the Aston Villa situation:
‘Aston Villa, meanwhile, have dropped four points in three home league games that have followed their Champions League matches this season. They defeated Wolverhampton Wanderers, but drew with Manchester United and Bournemouth and Sunday was the first time they had conceded four goals or more since a dead rubber against Crystal Palace on the last day of last season.
Might they have fared better, then, and made this season more competitive, had they not had to sell players to meet the artificial construct of PSR in the summer?
Villa are not in financial jeopardy. Indeed reaching the Champions League — or any European competition in the case of a smaller club — invariably necessitates squad improvements. Instead, Villa had to asset strip.
As a result, the demand on their squad is greater and their league form is not what it could be. Imagine the contest there would be at the top if every club could operate to its potential, rather than have the dead hand of Premier League chief executive Richard Masters and his ever-expanding team of lawyers hovering over their accounts.’
Martin Samuel on the Nottingham Forest situation:
‘Nottingham Forest are third. Now imagine where they might have been had they not been forced to sell Brennan Johnson to Tottenham Hotspur? Higher? Top, even? We’ll never know.
He’s in rare form now, Johnson. A goal a game in six fixtures across three competitions between September 18 and October 6 and another yesterday in an impressive 4-1 win over Aston Villa.
What we do know is that Forest did not need to sell. Not really. Their best player ended up at Tottenham because that is what Premier League rules demanded. Johnson had to leave to finance Forest’s investment in a Premier League future. Evangelos Marinakis, the owner, wasn’t allowed to finance that with his own enormous wealth, even though Johnson was an obvious asset. So Forest have thrived despite Premier League regulations. They have succeeded despite the intentions of rivals who are very keen on these limitations. Long may they continue to occupy the spots believed to be the preserve of others.
Yet Forest had to sell Johnson to meet some bogus calculation of what made the club sustainable. And when they delayed to get a better price out of Tottenham — one that looks more than reasonable now — it resulted in a points deduction.
Tottenham’s first offer was an undervalued £30million, but they went low because it was common knowledge Forest were struggling with their Profitability and Sustainability Rules (PSR) calculations. Forest held out for £47.5million but missed the accountancy deadline. The Premier League actually punished them for making a further £17.5million profit.’
Earlier this week, football finance expert Kieran Maguire highlighted how the established Premier League elite are trying to keep the likes of Newcastle United, Nottingham Forest and Aston Villa in their place.
It was 2013 when it was agreed to allow losses of £105m over any three season period.
That figure has never gone up.
Maguire pointing out that the latest available accounts for all Premier League clubs up to the end of the 2022/23 season, showed that when it comes to purchasing players, the buying power of £105m back in 2013 is the equivalent of £504m in 2023.
In June 2024, Aston Villa proposed a modest increase, which would allow £135m losses over a three season period instead of £105m. The richest and most powerful Premier League clubs ensured this was voted down and knocked back.
The man from The Times has summed up perfectly just how hamstrung any ambitious clubs are, when it comes to trying to close the gap on and off the pitch, under the current ‘rules’….
Rules that have allowed Chelsea to spend over £1.5billion on new players in just 28 months.

 
