2025/2026 English Premier League Thread

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Slava

Isn’t he just going to be a backup there?

Right, which is why they only wanted him on a loan. He was just supposed to be temporary cover in case Kane needed to be rotated and as far as I'm aware there is no timeline on the return of Musiala.

[Locke]

How Liverpool navigated PSR to spend so heavily.

In total, Liverpool spent £446m - the most ever spent by a Premier League club in a single window, eclipsing the £434.5m spent by Chelsea in the summer of 2023.

But how, in the era of PSR, did the champions finance such a huge transfer spend?

PSR limits clubs to outlays relative to their revenues. And Liverpool have big revenues.

They turned over £614m in their last set of accounts. By contrast, Newcastle turned over £320m.

There have been big sponsorship deals, such as the new link-up with adidas, which is reported to be worth as much as £60m per year over the next decade. Anfield has been expanded to increase matchday income and hospitality takings. There has also been a flood of prize money for achievements in the Premier League, Champions League and the cups in recent years.

Even including this bumper 2025 splurge, Liverpool only rank seventh among Premier League clubs for net spend since 2016/17. That means when sales are factored in, Liverpool have spent less than the likes of Tottenham and West Ham.

The hierarchy have also succeeded in that trickiest of fields - generating significant income from player sales.

This summer, Luis Diaz was sold for £65m and Darwin Nunez for £56.6m. They are headline fees but there was also substantial returns for fringe players Jarrell Quansah (£35m), Ben Gannon Doak (£25m), Caoimhin Kelleher (£18m) and Tyler Morton (£15m).

Arsenal (£257m) have had a bigger net spend this summer than Liverpool (£218.4m)

Liverpool have spent more than any club ever has in a transfer window. But when you deduct the money generated from sales, their net spend ranks fourth among Premier League clubs since 2016.

https://www.skysports.com/football/n...reaking-window

[Slava]

Yeah it’s things like the sales to the Saudis that allow for that spending. I can’t get over the fees that some clubs manage to get for players who are basically junk.

Isn’t this the kind of thing that we saw Juventus and Fabio Paratici get into hot water over? Basically the costs for some of those deals were found to be messing around with the values?

[Winsor_Pilates]

It's crazy that revenue is tied to what you can spend at all.
What a way to ensure smaller clubs have absolutely no chance to compete.
Has to be the most anti spirit of sport policy possible.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Slava

Yeah it’s things like the sales to the Saudis that allow for that spending. I can’t get over the fees that some clubs manage to get for players who are basically junk.

Isn’t this the kind of thing that we saw Juventus and Fabio Paratici get into hot water over? Basically the costs for some of those deals were found to be messing around with the values?

Well, yeah, but they were deliberately inflating values on the books without actually getting the money, its a little different in this case. I agree with you, Liverpool got some pretty nice money for some pretty questionable players.

Like...Ben Doak? Unless that guy turns into some sort of star that is a transfer that will go down in infamy.

But its no different than with City, they'd sell on players for small losses or even big profits, its part of the game.

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

It's crazy that revenue is tied to what you can spend at all.
What a way to ensure smaller clubs have absolutely no chance to compete.
Has to be the most anti spirit of sport policy possible.

I wouldnt say its 'crazy' but its certainly not ideal. They focused too heavily on the financial solvency of these clubs and in doing so have somewhat hamstrung them in terms of growth.

That being said, remember when City got bought? They bought every old ass hole under the Sun! They had guys earning £200k/wk on the bench and just bought and discarded at will, it was insane!

Dont think for a second that Newcastle's ownership wouldnt have done that exact same thing this summer if they could have gotten away with it. So there is a method to the madness of the PSR.

Its not perfect but I'd rather have PSR than nothing and turn the place into the Wild, Wild West with the Petro-Clubs just taking over completely.

[Locke]

I didn't see it mentioned but Harvey Elliot goes to Aston Villa on a season-long loan and City ditched Ederson to Turkey and signed Donnarumma.

Which is a pretty swift kick in the nuts to James Trafford.

[Senator Clay Davis]

It's funny to think fans revolted against the best solution to the extreme spending gaps between the riches and the poors, but the answer, of course, is called the Super League. Rich clubs already have a massive, virtually unbeatable advantage, at least if you segregated them out of the picture we could have some amazingly competitive leagues without them. Acting like "oh my God, the Super League is so anti-competitive" as if the rules now enhance competition lol.

Even acting like PSR is a meaningful deterrent when you see someone like Chelsea wipe their ass with it non-stop (see: Ben Chilwell transferred to Strasbourg, miraculously on the same wages and length as his current Chelsea deal), just peel off the band-aid and move on. Even just 10 years on from the Leicester miracle we're probably 10,000 times less likely to ever see that again with how much the money has changed.

Salary cap is never happening, the players won't ever voluntarily reduce their own earning power and the rich clubs will never support it. Transfer caps won't happen, selling clubs need to be able to try and rob the rich clubs whenever possible. Super League ain't perfect, but none of the other solutions are either, and it's probably the best overall solution to improve domestic league competitiveness and isolate the riches to do as they do.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

It's funny to think fans revolted against the best solution to the extreme spending gaps between the riches and the poors, but the answer, of course, is called the Super League. Rich clubs already have a massive, virtually unbeatable advantage, at least if you segregated them out of the picture we could have some amazingly competitive leagues without them. Acting like "oh my God, the Super League is so anti-competitive" as if the rules now enhance competition lol.

Even acting like PSR is a meaningful deterrent when you see someone like Chelsea wipe their ass with it non-stop (see: Ben Chilwell transferred to Strasbourg, miraculously on the same wages and length as his current Chelsea deal), just peel off the band-aid and move on. Even just 10 years on from the Leicester miracle we're probably 10,000 times less likely to ever see that again with how much the money has changed.

Salary cap is never happening, the players won't ever voluntarily reduce their own earning power and the rich clubs will never support it. Transfer caps won't happen, selling clubs need to be able to try and rob the rich clubs whenever possible. Super League ain't perfect, but none of the other solutions are either, and it's probably the best overall solution to improve domestic league competitiveness and isolate the riches to do as they do.

You might be right, however I still think that actually enforcing the rules that are already in place is a good starting point. Letting Chelsea just spend like they have, or City with the most obvious issues and letting those things drag on for years and years is at least half of the problem.

[MegaErtz]

The problem is the lax regulations. Clubs are encouraged to come up with creative accounting methods to get away with spending more. Chelsea selling their women's team for two hundred million was the real kicker for me.

It needs to be like the NHL - if there isn't any cap space available, you simply cannot register the player. Chelsea have this massive turnover of players to mask their true spending, and they've been getting away with it for years. Do we really think Manchester City will face serious punishment for their overspending?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by MegaErtz

The problem is the lax regulations. Clubs are encouraged to come up with creative accounting methods to get away with spending more. Chelsea selling their women's team for two hundred million was the real kicker for me.

It needs to be like the NHL - if there isn't any cap space available, you simply cannot register the player. Chelsea have this massive turnover of players to mask their true spending, and they've been getting away with it for years. Do we really think Manchester City will face serious punishment for their overspending?

But those deals (the non-arms length, obvious financial engineering deals) could be so easily policed. That and the deals where they're transferring players between other clubs they own should simply be outlawed. It's unbelievable that it's seemingly fine.

And the entire deal with Chelsea and Abramovich should've been examined. One day they owe about $1.3b and the next day that is just a wash and they can spend that on players? Its preposterous.

So sure, the Super League could solve all this, or we could start by having legitimate regulations that are actually followed.

[Senator Clay Davis]

But the rich clubs will never support change that could eventually hurt them. There will come a day when Liverpool, Arsenal, Spurs, whoever, will need to use the levers available to get around PSR/FFP, which is why they'll never support any change. And I think it was SuperMatt who said this before, but the PL likes that it is starting to hoard more and more talent because of how rich the league is. £3 billion spent this window alone, more talent = more quality teams = higher rights fees and ticket prices. As always, it's on the fans to stop watching, but drug addicts that we are we know that ain't happening either. Money always wins, such is life.

[Matty81]

The spending rules are to protect the fans and the game... I get that these new money premier league clubs are all frustrated but the reality is for 20 years we had mid to small community clubs going out of business, turning into phoenix clubs or staggering along completely ruined after bad owners came in and spent well beyond the club's means in search of glory, pissed off and left the clubs in debt.

I think the real problem is the way that the explosion of foreign interest in the prem has exasperated the gap in revenue as those fans are all glory hunters who support only big six clubs. You go on twitter these days and there are a million dudes from random places supporting the likes of chelsea, arsenal, liverpool spewing poison every time there is a refereeing decision going against them, they lose a bet, or anything they don't like etc. These clubs make as much on a pre season tour and overseas shirt sales as a club like Cardiff makes in gates.

I actually like that football is a meritocracy and you can spend what you earn, but I think they should ring fence a definition of revenue to domestic ticket, sponsorship and merchandise and remove overseas revenues, preseason tours, hotel sales, etc.

Good luck ever making that happen though, the ownership group is like a bond villains crew these days, some of the most unethical win at all costs people in the world there.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Matty81

The spending rules are to protect the fans and the game... I get that these new money premier league clubs are all frustrated but the reality is for 20 years we had mid to small community clubs going out of business, turning into phoenix clubs or staggering along completely ruined after bad owners came in and spent well beyond the club's means in search of glory, pissed off and left the clubs in debt.

I think the real problem is the way that the explosion of foreign interest in the prem has exasperated the gap in revenue as those fans are all glory hunters who support only big six clubs. You go on twitter these days and there are a million dudes from random places supporting the likes of chelsea, arsenal, liverpool spewing poison every time there is a refereeing decision going against them, they lose a bet, or anything they don't like etc. These clubs make as much on a pre season tour and overseas shirt sales as a club like Cardiff makes in gates.

I actually like that football is a meritocracy and you can spend what you earn, but I think they should ring fence a definition of revenue to domestic ticket, sponsorship and merchandise and remove overseas revenues, preseason tours, hotel sales, etc.

Good luck ever making that happen though, the ownership group is like a bond villains crew these days, some of the most unethical win at all costs people in the world there.

Its a self-fulfilling prophecy. Its like Jörmungandr, the snake that ate it's own tail.

They allowed Abramovich to spend indiscriminately and other clubs had to compete.

They allowed City to spend indiscriminately and other clubs had to compete.

Spurs and Arsenal needed Stadiums to generate more revenue and they couldn't just tap a limitless Sovereign Wealth Fund.

Liverpool need more revenues, they had to expand Anfield, that money has to come from somewhere.

Its disingenuous to call them all Bond Villains or monsters who have to win/compete at all costs when in fact these are the scenarios and circumstances that the EPL themselves created.

So yeah, the EPL threw community clubs, small business clubs, large Corporate clubs, Oligarch Clubs and Petro-State clubs all into the same pool with sharks and then chummed the waters.

These guys are wired to 'win at all costs' because thats the environment that was created for them and that they've had to survive in, if they dont constantly fight like hell someone will come in and toss more chum into the water to eliminate a rival.

The system is no doubt flawed, but its better than it was, but it still can be better.

And the 'Super League?' Of COURSE the huge Clubs want it! Whats not to want? A vastly larger amount of guaranteed money split amongst significantly fewer parties with no relegation meaning an elimination of almost any and all risk.

If someone comes to you and offers you 3-times as much money for much less work and almost no downside risk....who says 'no' ?

All you gotta do is show up? Where do I sign? But if you want to talk about the erosion of sport...there it is right there.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by Slava

You might be right, however I still think that actually enforcing the rules that are already in place is a good starting point. Letting Chelsea just spend like they have, or City with the most obvious issues and letting those things drag on for years and years is at least half of the problem.

Crystal Palace gets relegated from Europa for their relationship with Lyon.

Chelsea gets nothing for their relationship with Strabourg.

insane.

[devo22]

Chelsea is in the Champions League, Strasbourg is in the Conference League. Crystal Palace and Lyon would have been in the same competition, so while I get the sentiment, it's a different situation.

Plus, Palace have no one to blame but themselves. They simply missed the deadline.

[Locke]

All record transfers aside is a League without Jonjo Shelvey in it a League even worth watching?

[cam_calderon]

Originally Posted by Locke

All record transfers aside is a League without Jonjo Shelvey in it a League even worth watching?

As far as I'm concerned, the EPL doesn't exist without Charlie Adam and his set-pieces.

[Slava]

Wow, Daniel Levy is out as Chairman at Tottenham. Really interesting development there!

[Senator Clay Davis]

Early Christmas present for Spurs fans.

[Locke]

This is going to be interesting.

Careful what you wish for...