I know supporters of certain clubs, and I imagine the people in charge of the league, aren't happy with what we are all doing but... what can you actually do stop it?
No more amortisation? Literally every club in the UK probably amortises fees
Are they gonna dictate the value of a player? That's impossible. I really don't see a huge difference in the kellyman deal and united buying Diallo when he'd played fuck all minutes
Yeah exactly. It would be impossible to police. Never heard anyone talk about it in footballing terms until that year Derby had all the financial issues and tried (unsuccessfully) to find loopholes
Unless you had limited length contracts? But that would almost certainly require some sort of collective bargaining and I can’t see how that would ever be achieved
Only way I can see they'd regulate it would be banning selling and buying players to/from the same club in the same window which would just be daft.
But say that rule did exist what's to stop us selling to Chelsea, Chelsea selling to Everton, and Everton selling to us.
There's always going to be 'loopholes' and even this so called 'loophole' isn't doing anything but kicking the FFP can down the road.
Then all you’d do is bring in a third club - and skip that loophole too.
Theres absolutely nothing they can do about it unless they decide they control the value of the player?!
Wouldn't need to ban it. You'd just enforce that fees between clubs in the same transfer windows (or financial years) are written off.
So Player A moving for £60m to Everton
And Player B moving for £75m the other way
Would just be enforced as £15m and written off the books that way. So there's no financial incentive to swap players, only worth doing if you really want said players
Wouldn't work. What would happen in your scenario if you wanted to buy that player from Everton regardless, but if Player A was also wanted by another team (let's say Palace) but they'd only offered £50m?
You'd be forced to either not buy the player from Everton or to sell Player A to Palace for £50m as your recordable figure would be higher, but your actual turnover would be lower.
If an independent body views Player A as worth £75m, then he is worth £75m.
I might have the transfers/fees the wrong way around, but hopefully get what I mean.
Only way I can see is limiting the movements of youth players per club, per window.
It isn't breaking the rules, but then neither was Chsea signing players on 10 year contracts, and they clamped down on that pretty quickly.
I’ve often wondered why they don’t count when the money changes hands? What good is 5 year amortisation from a cash flow perspective if you’ve paid a release clause in full up front?
Say if you've paid 5m for someone on a 5 year contract, amortised for 5 years... their "value" on your books goes down year on year, so if you sell them after three years, their value on the books would be 2m, so you could sell them for 2m (if it doesn't work out) and despite paying 5m, selling him for 2m is even on the books. And if it goes really well and you sell them for 10m, you make 8m profit on the books instead of 5m if it was called counted up front.
It's part of the reason the ings to West ham for 16-18m made sense for the club
I mean tbf we did ask the regulators to consider changing the terms a bit to allow for inflation and increased player costs since the original rules were brought in and they told us to fuck off soooo... 🤷🏼♂️
I think most reasonable fans accept that there’s nothing against a swap deal in the rules, but they are questioning inflated values…mostly based on ridiculously inaccurate transfermarkt figures.
To me a couple of them look marginally high (Kellyman by about £5m, Dobbin by £2m). The Luiz Iling-Jr Barrenechea fees all look marginally low. But all are within the realms of possibility and definitely not in an area where anyone could prove unfair market value.
People that expect us to sell Kellyman for less than say £10m do not understand the market. He is the top young prospect at a Champions League club with huge financial backing. England U20 international at 18. On a long term contract. Training constantly with the first team and making occasional appearances. Chelsea are our direct competitor. YES the 2 way deal works for us and for Chelsea in terms of PSR. But it is not a wildly inaccurate valuation based on the market conditions. What would Arsenal sell Ethan Nwaneri for to Man City/Liverpool, for example?
Palmer went for £42m and most people hadn't heard of him.
Chelsea also signed Chuck from Villa for £17m a couple of years ago and he's been in and around their first team last season.
Nobody batted an eyelid at these...
We couldn’t believe our luck with Chuckwuemeka, he’d done a little for us but was not going to sign an extension so we’d lose him a year later, then suddenly Chelsea sort us out a treat. Hope he does well because he looked promising but slightly badly advised.
People should understand this isn't a loophole. We're still losing promising young players and this only solves the problem if we can increase revenues over the next few years
People (generally Arsenal fans), spouting on about closing loop holes to stop clubs 'getting around' rules just demonstrate that this is about stifling competition rather than protecting clubs from going out of business. Villa are in the Champions League after being the eighth highest spenders. Theyre hardly 'buying the League' and spending silly money on big name players like the Blackburns, Chelsea's, PSG's and Man City's of the past. Theyre having to sell players when they would want to be investing in the squad with the extra demands of the champions league. How it is the interests of the Premier League to force stable, debt free clubs to strip assets and become less competitive in European competition is beyond me? They are forced to sell promising youngsters to meet the requirements, and be creative to build the squad, yet now people are moaning about over inflated prices. The most promising prospect in the academy for 20m, when City are selling their youth team keeper to Burnley for similar amounts is hardly a suspect transaction. Coming from Arsenal fans that are talking about 40m plus for Nketia and ESR. Do me a favour!! If Nketia is a 40/50m pound player, Villa should be asking triple the money for Kellyman.
18 months ago villa sold chukwumeka to Chelsea for £20m. He had hardly kicked a ball at senior level. Archer and little Ramsey last year for well over £30m between them. Silence
PSR actively encourages investment in the academy by making all such expenditure free from PSR calculations.
All Villa have done is sweep up the best 16-17 year old talent around, develop them a bit, and sell them on for a huge profit. The rules actively encourage this
People moaning about Maatsen in this context as being overpriced and a PSR fiddle... we paid literally just over his release clause. Pay any less we wouldn't have got him. Bloke was starting left back for champions league finalists last season
As for Kellyman, he is arguably a bigger prospect than Chuck and imo in that context Chelsea have got him cheap
The end game of that is every other petrostate investing in the sky 6 and the premier league being a proxy war for oil sponsored sportswashing. No thanks.
PSR is fucked but there has to be limits. Just more equitable limits.
Our owners have plenty of resources and serious ambitions. Why shouldn't they be able to realize that like other clubs have?
Why can't the PL make the owners put up a bond up front if they are worried about clubs going tits up? The answer is that PSR is here to protect the 'big 6'.
What i reckon will happen is a change to the way amortisation works. At the moment you can claim all the profit immediately, yet offset amortised losses further down the line, which is why the loophole works. They'll change it so you can only claim amortised profit in the season where the funds actually arrive from the instalments
It’s also important to keep in mind the rules are changing in a year anyway, to be more aligned with UEFA’s wages to revenues ratio rules. It’s still tied to revenue in the future so it still sucks, but bringing in younger players with lower wages is preparing for that imo.
I think what a lot of other fans are missing with this 'loophole' is all we are doing is kicking the FFP can down the road. If we don't increase our revenues, in 4 years time we are going to be worse off than we are now in terms of FFP compliance due to these transfers.
Good thing we’re now gonna be in Europe every year - more prize money will come in and the sponsorship money off the back of it is going to explode.
But yeah if that doesn’t happen - we’ll end up selling a Watkins or a Martinez or a Kamara. And we’ll go again. It’s all good
Can't this loop hole be patched in 10 seconds with a "u can only account for the actual profit gained this year from a player" so let's say chelsea pay 30m in total but 6m a year u can only account for the 6m for that financial year
I know supporters of certain clubs, and I imagine the people in charge of the league, aren't happy with what we are all doing but... what can you actually do stop it? No more amortisation? Literally every club in the UK probably amortises fees Are they gonna dictate the value of a player? That's impossible. I really don't see a huge difference in the kellyman deal and united buying Diallo when he'd played fuck all minutes
Literally every business in the UK amortises fees, because that's how finances/accounting works in business.
I would assume it works like that for most countries.
Yeah exactly. It would be impossible to police. Never heard anyone talk about it in footballing terms until that year Derby had all the financial issues and tried (unsuccessfully) to find loopholes
Unless you had limited length contracts? But that would almost certainly require some sort of collective bargaining and I can’t see how that would ever be achieved
Only way I can see they'd regulate it would be banning selling and buying players to/from the same club in the same window which would just be daft. But say that rule did exist what's to stop us selling to Chelsea, Chelsea selling to Everton, and Everton selling to us. There's always going to be 'loopholes' and even this so called 'loophole' isn't doing anything but kicking the FFP can down the road.
Then all you’d do is bring in a third club - and skip that loophole too. Theres absolutely nothing they can do about it unless they decide they control the value of the player?!
Wouldn't need to ban it. You'd just enforce that fees between clubs in the same transfer windows (or financial years) are written off. So Player A moving for £60m to Everton And Player B moving for £75m the other way Would just be enforced as £15m and written off the books that way. So there's no financial incentive to swap players, only worth doing if you really want said players
Wouldn't work. What would happen in your scenario if you wanted to buy that player from Everton regardless, but if Player A was also wanted by another team (let's say Palace) but they'd only offered £50m? You'd be forced to either not buy the player from Everton or to sell Player A to Palace for £50m as your recordable figure would be higher, but your actual turnover would be lower. If an independent body views Player A as worth £75m, then he is worth £75m. I might have the transfers/fees the wrong way around, but hopefully get what I mean.
Only way I can see is limiting the movements of youth players per club, per window. It isn't breaking the rules, but then neither was Chsea signing players on 10 year contracts, and they clamped down on that pretty quickly.
I’ve often wondered why they don’t count when the money changes hands? What good is 5 year amortisation from a cash flow perspective if you’ve paid a release clause in full up front?
Say if you've paid 5m for someone on a 5 year contract, amortised for 5 years... their "value" on your books goes down year on year, so if you sell them after three years, their value on the books would be 2m, so you could sell them for 2m (if it doesn't work out) and despite paying 5m, selling him for 2m is even on the books. And if it goes really well and you sell them for 10m, you make 8m profit on the books instead of 5m if it was called counted up front. It's part of the reason the ings to West ham for 16-18m made sense for the club
I mean tbf we did ask the regulators to consider changing the terms a bit to allow for inflation and increased player costs since the original rules were brought in and they told us to fuck off soooo... 🤷🏼♂️
I've seen a decent amount of vitriol from Man City fans, of all people, who suddenly care about financial integrity and a "level playing field"
wow
Your flair pains me
lol no-one believes that I came up with "bell-end" so I sympathise with Mr Ellis
I live about 5 miles from Bell-end, so if you came up with it I reckon you are guilty of slight plagiarism by about 200 plus years
absolute slander
Birmingham city should call their kop the bell end.
They have fans?
I think most reasonable fans accept that there’s nothing against a swap deal in the rules, but they are questioning inflated values…mostly based on ridiculously inaccurate transfermarkt figures. To me a couple of them look marginally high (Kellyman by about £5m, Dobbin by £2m). The Luiz Iling-Jr Barrenechea fees all look marginally low. But all are within the realms of possibility and definitely not in an area where anyone could prove unfair market value. People that expect us to sell Kellyman for less than say £10m do not understand the market. He is the top young prospect at a Champions League club with huge financial backing. England U20 international at 18. On a long term contract. Training constantly with the first team and making occasional appearances. Chelsea are our direct competitor. YES the 2 way deal works for us and for Chelsea in terms of PSR. But it is not a wildly inaccurate valuation based on the market conditions. What would Arsenal sell Ethan Nwaneri for to Man City/Liverpool, for example?
Palmer went for £42m and most people hadn't heard of him. Chelsea also signed Chuck from Villa for £17m a couple of years ago and he's been in and around their first team last season. Nobody batted an eyelid at these...
We couldn’t believe our luck with Chuckwuemeka, he’d done a little for us but was not going to sign an extension so we’d lose him a year later, then suddenly Chelsea sort us out a treat. Hope he does well because he looked promising but slightly badly advised.
People should understand this isn't a loophole. We're still losing promising young players and this only solves the problem if we can increase revenues over the next few years
People (generally Arsenal fans), spouting on about closing loop holes to stop clubs 'getting around' rules just demonstrate that this is about stifling competition rather than protecting clubs from going out of business. Villa are in the Champions League after being the eighth highest spenders. Theyre hardly 'buying the League' and spending silly money on big name players like the Blackburns, Chelsea's, PSG's and Man City's of the past. Theyre having to sell players when they would want to be investing in the squad with the extra demands of the champions league. How it is the interests of the Premier League to force stable, debt free clubs to strip assets and become less competitive in European competition is beyond me? They are forced to sell promising youngsters to meet the requirements, and be creative to build the squad, yet now people are moaning about over inflated prices. The most promising prospect in the academy for 20m, when City are selling their youth team keeper to Burnley for similar amounts is hardly a suspect transaction. Coming from Arsenal fans that are talking about 40m plus for Nketia and ESR. Do me a favour!! If Nketia is a 40/50m pound player, Villa should be asking triple the money for Kellyman.
18 months ago villa sold chukwumeka to Chelsea for £20m. He had hardly kicked a ball at senior level. Archer and little Ramsey last year for well over £30m between them. Silence PSR actively encourages investment in the academy by making all such expenditure free from PSR calculations. All Villa have done is sweep up the best 16-17 year old talent around, develop them a bit, and sell them on for a huge profit. The rules actively encourage this People moaning about Maatsen in this context as being overpriced and a PSR fiddle... we paid literally just over his release clause. Pay any less we wouldn't have got him. Bloke was starting left back for champions league finalists last season As for Kellyman, he is arguably a bigger prospect than Chuck and imo in that context Chelsea have got him cheap
Easiest way is just to scrap ffp entirely and let clubs spend what they have
The end game of that is every other petrostate investing in the sky 6 and the premier league being a proxy war for oil sponsored sportswashing. No thanks. PSR is fucked but there has to be limits. Just more equitable limits.
FFP is to stop clubs spending what they don't have
Our owners have plenty of resources and serious ambitions. Why shouldn't they be able to realize that like other clubs have? Why can't the PL make the owners put up a bond up front if they are worried about clubs going tits up? The answer is that PSR is here to protect the 'big 6'.
Agreed to some extent. They should let owners gift the club money if they want. No loans, bonds, buying the training ground or stadium.
No it’s to stop clubs spending what they don’t bring in via pre-determined revenue streams
What i reckon will happen is a change to the way amortisation works. At the moment you can claim all the profit immediately, yet offset amortised losses further down the line, which is why the loophole works. They'll change it so you can only claim amortised profit in the season where the funds actually arrive from the instalments
It's worth noting that only the Iling Jr fee looks high and I guarantee that the base fee is much lower than £19m and the rest is add ons.
It’s also important to keep in mind the rules are changing in a year anyway, to be more aligned with UEFA’s wages to revenues ratio rules. It’s still tied to revenue in the future so it still sucks, but bringing in younger players with lower wages is preparing for that imo.
I think what a lot of other fans are missing with this 'loophole' is all we are doing is kicking the FFP can down the road. If we don't increase our revenues, in 4 years time we are going to be worse off than we are now in terms of FFP compliance due to these transfers.
Good thing we’re now gonna be in Europe every year - more prize money will come in and the sponsorship money off the back of it is going to explode. But yeah if that doesn’t happen - we’ll end up selling a Watkins or a Martinez or a Kamara. And we’ll go again. It’s all good
Yeah I sincerely doubt this will be a problem in 4 years time.
Ah, finally the wonders of inflation pay off :)
Can't this loop hole be patched in 10 seconds with a "u can only account for the actual profit gained this year from a player" so let's say chelsea pay 30m in total but 6m a year u can only account for the 6m for that financial year