PNE Online
Welcome to PNE-Online. Why not register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox! You can also join up as a forum Patron to help support in the running costs of the forum.

New EFL rules? Expenditure cannot exceed 70% revenue.

Why is League One our natural level? We've spent 23 years out of 123 (18.7%) of our history in League 1 and 5 years in League 2. 95 out of 123 years in the top 2 divisions. I would argue we are currently exactly at our level.

Even in recent history, since 2000 we've spent 19 of 23 years in this league.
It's our financial break-even level, assuming we continue our current policy of making no profits in the transfer market.

We're discussing what happens if our spending were to be limited to some level less than our turnover, as expected in future sustainability rules for the Championship, and as already happens in L1/L2.
 
It's our financial break-even level, assuming we continue our current policy of making no profits in the transfer market.

We're discussing what happens if our spending were to be limited to some level less than our turnover, as expected in future sustainability rules for the Championship, and as already happens in L1/L2.
I still disagree with the statement that it's our "natural level" though.
 
Maybe they should introduce a new EFL rule that you get docked points for playing an outfit incapable of shooting either side of the opposing goalkeeper. With double deductions if you bench your only player that can.
 
I guess it depends what every OTHER club's break even point is. IE are we in the top 44 clubs in the country for turnover?
Impossible to say with any certainty, because promotion and relegation means the picture is always changing, clubs file their accounts at different times, plus Covid has distorted recent years' results.

But if I had to draw a line on a graph, we wouldn't be in my top 44.

In the current Championship, I'd say we're definitely above Wigan and Blackpool, and at a similar level to Rotherham and Luton.

But in the current L1, I'd say Sheff Wed, Ipswich, Derby, Bolton and Portsmouth have a higher underlying turnover than us, and teams like Barnsley and Charlton would at least run us close. Plymouth look poised to be the latest to overtake us too, if they come up.

The outlook for us would look very different to now if we went down, and we wouldn't have much to make us stand out from the crowd or generate any extra cash either - our academy being unremarkable, fitting right in alongside all the other Cat 3 outfits down there.

But as I say, it's impossible to be certain with this stuff. This is just my take.
 
Just seen this:


I'm no expert, but wouldn't this absolutely ruin most championship clubs? Reading alone are beyond 200%.

@raefil here's an archived version so you don't have to click on a telegraph link 😉

Won’t happen. Tories trying to con people that they actually care about football- i5’s a scam to try to retain red wall seats and if you’re thick enough to vote for them you deserve everything you get.
 
The problem for the club is for a decade now the club has had no interest in raising revenue, irrelevant of what that generated, profit, goodwill or brand awareness. This is the downside of a shareholder footing the bills.

The massive issue now is that’s now firmly in the clubs off field DNA, that’s something that’s really difficult to turn around. There’s no culture in the business to move forward or do anything proactively.

The latest kit deal simply follows that same path albeit with a different brand.

The new fanzone is going to be part of the new catering contract, as per the latest supporter liaison meeting so again no real club staff buy in or involvement.

If you bought the club you would literally need to start the club again from scratch off the field, it’s so far behind even the likes of Accy Stanley.
 
Take a look at what happened to the Pontins Estate once the Hemmings took hold of it. Its the way they operate.

Theyre an example of vulture capitalists, about making money at the top with little to no thought or care what happens to others with their actions.
 
Take a look at what happened to the Pontins Estate once the Hemmings took hold of it. Its the way they operate.

Theyre an example of vulture capitalists, about making money at the top with little to no thought or care what happens to others with their actions.
Even PNE could score at Pontins
 
The Athletic with a summary of yesterday's DCMS select committee, which featured the Prem and EFL CEOs, Masters and Parry.

Current state of play:
Overall, the Premier League currently shares about 15 per cent of its income with the EFL, non-League and the grassroots game, but the biggest chunk of that goes in parachute payments. The EFL believes a fairer distribution would be 25 per cent of the combined media income.​
The Premier League is willing to offer more [than the current 15%] — and is believed to have offered an additional £125 million a year — but only if Championship clubs agree to a [70% of turnover] salary cap, the EFL and FA scrap cup replays and the FA relaxes the work-permit rules for overseas players.​

The sticking point remains parachute payments.

Prem's attitude:
But [Masters] categorically refused to scrap parachute payments, describing them as “vital” and “one of the few sustainability instruments that exist within football, albeit for a small group of clubs”, and warned that there would be “significant difficulties” for promoted and relegated clubs without them.​
“Our proposal is clear. When you have increased funding on a merit rake, parachute clubs get topped up, so it’s a different system but it doesn’t involve the abolition of parachute payments.”​

EFL's attitude:
“We’re not in the same place, it would be fair to say. Parachute clubs are three times as likely now to get promoted as other clubs. [...]​
“If we put financial restrictions on the other clubs [i.e. via the proposed new salary cap] and the parachute clubs have an open goal in terms of what they want to spend to get back up again, that’s not sustainability. And it’s hard to see how parachute payments contribute to sustainability in any way shape or form, frankly.”​

They both still "hope" the changes will be agreed in time for next season.

 
Me too. How come so many clubs like Burnley, Bournemouth and Brentford who are similar sized clubs exceed their natural level, it’s because they didn’t accept a “natural level” either.

Establishing a baseline exists doesn't mean that it's not possible to exceed it.

I don't think anyone would disagree that Sheffield Wednesday are beneath their natural level either. But you still have benefit from establishing what that level is, to accurately measure performance against it.
 
Establishing a baseline exists doesn't mean that it's not possible to exceed it.

I don't think anyone would disagree that Sheffield Wednesday are beneath their natural level either. But you still have benefit from establishing what that level is, to accurately measure performance against it.
Neil Degrasse Tyson GIF
 
Establishing a baseline exists doesn't mean that it's not possible to exceed it.

I don't think anyone would disagree that Sheffield Wednesday are beneath their natural level either. But you still have benefit from establishing what that level is, to accurately measure performance against it.
Sorry I see sport winners, losers and also rans. Baselines are mathematical. A good athlete is a good athlete even in a team.
 
All that matters is whether the club are doing everything in their power to do as well as possible.

How big we are or whether we should have done better is not really the question now.

I'd just settle for a club that demonstrably cares about its fans and ACTUALLY APPEARS TO HAVE A FUCKING PLAN.
 
Top