01 Sep 2026 18:02:11
How can Ipswich have over 170 million to spend and we don’t or should we have but 49ers are not playing ball?

1.) 01 Sep 2026
01 Sep 2026 19:04:00
Don't know for sure, Whiteman, but it may be in the same vein as Sunderland last year, because they didn't spend a lot over the preceding couple of years and sold players that were either Academy players or those with little owing. They could spend a s*** load when they went up. Either way, the system is utterly floored!

2.) 01 Sep 2026
01 Sep 2026 18:56:16
Didn't you hear Whitey that Marathe is keeping back 50 mill just in case a marquee player becomes available?

3.) 01 Sep 2026
01 Sep 2026 19:12:05
SCR is quite complicated. You can spend up to 115% of revenue without being penalised, but the actual Premier League limit is 85%. In Europe, it's even lower at 70%.

With the Premier League, if you go over 85%, say to 92% (+7) , then your limit for the following season, before sanctions, reduces, so would be 108%.

We seem to have included an obligation for Bohoya to limit how far over 85% we go, but by most accounts we will be over. Say around 95%.
The good news is we have some future outgoing fees sort of baked in.

Ramazani at 6.5m is basically guaranteed, and Piroe, if Hammers promoted, for a further £8m. That helps.
Assuming we stay up, id regrettably expect a major, profitable sale next season. Ampadu, Stach, or one of the defenders. Not because the 49ers can't back us, but to back us they need us to stay SCR compliant.
They are building the stadium and the fan park for revenue, but that won't impact it overnight.

4.) 01 Sep 2026
01 Sep 2026 19:31:02
Stop talking sense, Ealing. People can't handle it. :)

5.) 01 Sep 2026
01 Sep 2026 19:38:58
We were at 91% yesterday, so Willie and Ramz transfers should improve that, but we will be over 85% at the close of the window.
The only ones under yesterday were the big six, excluding Chelsea (although that might change with the Fernandez sale) , Sunderland, and the three promoted sides.


It will be interesting to see what the figures are tomorrow, especially Bournemouth, who were up at 125%. They might need a big late sale or one in January.

6.) 01 Sep 2026
01 Sep 2026 19:50:03
Corkey, not a lot of people know that. ?

7.) 01 Sep 2026
01 Sep 2026 19:51:17
Thanks, General. ?

8.) 01 Sep 2026
01 Sep 2026 19:54:30
Yeah Bournemouth are slightly struggling and far more vulnerable than they look.
They had a superb coach in Iraola who helped them punch above their weight. But their revenues will always be hurt by having the tiny stadium without real room to grow it unless they move.
Kroupi's broken foot is a real blow for them both in terms of staying up (I think in a huge transition year that has to be their aim) and extracting their value for him.


Depending where they are in Jan, if they are looking good they'll 100% sell Scott to get nearer compliance. Rayan is another option but given Scott won't sign a new contract he's more likely. Losing Senesi on a free really hurt their model too.
More a Bournemouth post, but it's about assessing our rivals, I guess, and I feel we're better placed than them, Sunderland, Palace, the promoted sides - though I rate Ipswich - and Fulham.

{Ed001's Note - they are filling in the open corners for this season. One of the stands is to be rebuilt with 2 tiers as well. Rayon will almost certainly go in January as his release clause kicks in.

9.) 01 Sep 2026
01 Sep 2026 19:11:18
Sorry Ed for the profanity, typo, should have said 'shed' load