S.C.R

[Bladedog]

Meanwhile in the Premier League.....

I'm guessing the investigation into city is coming to a conclusion then...corrupt as fuck.

 

[Champagneblade]

Basically pay to cheat and sort it out amongst yourselves.

It’s like prison in some countries I believe. Isn’t Spain like this? You can swap your sentence for a fine (to a degree) and let’s face it, it’s not the little guys who do major financial crime.

How many footballers in Spain, including Messi, get done for tax evasion and how many have actually gone in clink?

 

[Eddiecolquhounsleg]

Jesus. Sales of brown paper bags rocket in Manchester.

 

[Silent Blade]

Asked AI if loans would be useful under SCR rules

Loans can be a good thing for a football club under the new Squad Cost Ratio (SCR) rules, but their utility depends heavily on whether they are player loans or financial loans, and the club's financial health.
Under the new 2026/27, regulations, clubs (particularly in the Premier League) must limit on-pitch spending—player wages, transfer amortization, and agent fees—to a set percentage of their revenue (85% standard, or 70% for UEFA competition participants). [1, 2]
Here is an analysis of how loans work under SCR:

1. Player Loan Deals (Temporary Transfers)
Player loans are generally advantageous under strict cost-ratio rules:

• Reduced Immediate Cost: Loans allow clubs to acquire talent without the immediate, large amortization impact of a permanent transfer fee on the annual cost ratio, making it easier to stay under the 70%/85% cap.
• Lower Wage Commitment: Often, the parent club continues to pay a portion of the player’s wages, reducing the overall wage bill, which is a major component of the SCR calculation.
• Flexibility: They are ideal for covering short-term gaps, such as injuries, without locking in long-term squad costs.
• Strategic Acquisition: A loan with an option or obligation to buy can allow a club to defer the transfer cost to a later season, helping with current compliance.

2. Financial Loans (Debt Financing)
While not directly reducing the cost ratio (as they are not generally considered "revenue" to boost spending limits), financial loans are still a "good" thing for sustainability under SCR:

• Liquidity Management: Loans allow clubs to access upfront cash for immediate needs, such as paying agents or salaries, while waiting on instalment payments from previous sales.
• Owner Support: While equity injections are preferred, secure loans from owners can help maintain positive equity, a requirement under the new Sustainability and Systemic Resilience (SSR) rules.
• Improved Reputation: The new regulations encourage stronger financial discipline, making banks and investors more confident in lending to clubs due to greater transparency.

Potential Downsides

• Cash Flow vs. Profitability: Loans do not increase the "revenue" needed to raise the 70%/85% spending cap. A club cannot borrow money to pay for higher wages, as it only increases debt, not revenue.
• Interest Costs: Debt financing comes with interest, which can affect the club's overall profitability even if it doesn't immediately violate the SCR cap.
• Long-Term Obligation: If a player loan has an obligation to buy, the club must ensure they have the headroom to pay that fee and the increased wages in future seasons.

In summary, for clubs operating near the top of their 70% or 85% limit, loans are an efficient tool to manage competitiveness without triggering penalties.

 

[LurkerBlade]

20/24 clubs voted FOR the new rules, couldn't find anywhere who didn't want it?