Lewis Hall - Newcastle Player | Bye Bye Boehly

roonster09 said:
IIRC, loan with obligation to buy is considered as straight buy for FFP, at least from buying point of view.

Loan with option to buy is different.
Click to expand...

No the FFP clock will only start to tick when the permanent deal starts and the real cash changes hands.
 
duffer said:
It is bonkers that "loan with obligation to buy" is a thing in terms of FFP dodges.

Now that Chelsea have done one, I would imagine they'll change the rules.
Click to expand...
It is a farce. Much like the loan system some abuse.
 
terraloo said:
No the FFP clock will only start to tick when the permanent deal starts and the real cash changes hands.
Click to expand...

There was thread on this years ago.

roonster09 said:
From UEFA site.
Loan of a player from the lender club to the new club with an unconditional obligation to buy
a) The loan must be reflected by the lender club as a permanent transfer and the player’s registration rights must be derecognised from its intangible assets. The proceeds from the loan and from the future permanent transfer must be recognised from the inception of the loan agreement.
b) The direct costs of the loan and the future permanent transfer for the new club must be recognised by the new club in accordance with the accounting requirements for permanent acquisition of a player’s registration

Loan of a player from the lender club to the new club with a conditional obligation to buy
a) If a condition is considered to be virtually certain, then the player’s registration must be recognised by both clubs as a permanent transfer from the inception of the loan agreement.
b) If the fulfilment of a condition cannot be assessed with sufficient certainty to trigger the permanent transfer from the inception of the loan, then the player’s registration must be recognised first a


https://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/Tech/uefaorg/General/02/56/20/15/2562015_DOWNLOAD.pdf



I don't know why it's not a sale with deferred payment, but loan with obligation to buy is as good as permanent transfer for FFP accounting.
Click to expand...
 
Put in an absolutely stunning cross against us last season that Havertz fluffed in amusing fashion. That's about all I know about him.
 
roonster09 said:
There was thread on this years ago.
Click to expand...

I can only assume this is an old FFP provision if that’s correct it may impact Newcastle but Chelsea don’t need gain a UEFA Licence so won’t be concerned
 
terraloo said:
I can only assume this is an old FFP provision if that’s correct it may impact Newcastle but Chelsea don’t need gain a UEFA Licence so won’t be concerned
Click to expand...

Every club gets license every year, not just new participants.
 
roonster09 said:
Every club gets license every year,
Click to expand...

A licence is only required by clubs that qualify for UEFA club competitions

From UEFAs site
The licence is essentially a certificate confirming that a club fulfills all UEFA's minimum criteria for admission to UEFA club competitions. All clubs that qualify on sporting merit for UEFA club competitions must be granted a licence before they can actually take part in European ties.

These licences are issued by National FAs here’s what the FA say about who applies

An application for a UEFA Club Licence may be made by any Club which has qualified for, or anticipates qualifying for, a UEFA Club Competition on sporting merit. A Club which applies for a UEFA Club Licence shall provide to the League all information and documents required by the League to enable it to recommend to the Football Association Board whether the Club’s UEFA Club Licence application should be granted or refused in accordance with the terms of the League’s appointment by the Football Association as set out in clause 3.2
 
terraloo said:
A licence is only required by clubs that qualify for UEFA club competitions

From UEFAs site
The licence is essentially a certificate confirming that a club fulfills all UEFA's minimum criteria for admission to UEFA club competitions. All clubs that qualify on sporting merit for UEFA club competitions must be granted a licence before they can actually take part in European ties.
Click to expand...

Exactly. It's even for old participants they need one to play in Europe competition, just like how Chelsea needed one last season and will need one if they qualify for next season.

So loan with obligation is as good as permanent transfer and every club that qualifies for European competition will have to get UEFA licence to participate.
 
roonster09 said:
Exactly. It's even for old participants they need one to play in Europe competition, just like how Chelsea needed one last season and will need one if they qualify for next season.

So loan with obligation is as good as permanent transfer and every club that qualifies for European competition will have to get UEFA licence to participate.
Click to expand...

But they don’t need one this season you stated

“Every club gets license every year, not just new participants.”
 
terraloo said:
But they don’t need one this season you stated

“Every club gets license every year, not just new participants.”
Click to expand...

It's obvious what I meant, every club that participates in European competition. Thought bold part makes it obvious.

Just because Chelsea are not participating in one doesn't make their loan to obligation to buy different than other loan to obligation to buy. Next season if they qualify then Hall transfer will be considered as sale in 2023-24 season.
 
Last edited:
roonster09 said:
It's obvious what I meant, every club that participates in European competition. Thought bold part makes it obvious.

Just because Chelsea are not participating in one doesn't make their loan to obligation to buy different than other loan to obligation to buy. Next season if they qualify then Hall transfer will be considered as sale in 2023-24 season.
Click to expand...

It’s not obvious at all .

The one simple point I think you are missing irrespective is that Hall being an academy product has no value in terms of being an intangible. No sum for us to amortised .
I do believe the current regulations talk about amortised sums stopping and starting at point o registration but no where in the current regs can I find mention that in the likes of Hall the fee would in effect be back dated


Edit


After several cups of coffee I have found and read the current regulations and yep they very much mirror the rules you

posted earlier

Loan of a player from the lender club to the new club with a conditional obligation to buy:

  1. If a condition is considered to be virtually certain, then the player’s registration must be recognised by both clubs as a permanent transfer from the inception of the loan agreement.
  2. If the fulfilment of a condition cannot be assessed with sufficient certainty to trigger the permanent transfer from the inception of the loan, then the player’s registration must be recognised first as a loan and then as a permanent transfer once the condition is met.
I do think matters are complicated, for us at least , by not having a license in 23/24 but the transactional rules applicable in 23/24 complicate matters even further and to be honest they are way above my pay grade
Anyways interesting discussion
 
Last edited:
terraloo said:
It’s not obvious at all .

The one simple point I think you are missing irrespective is that Hall being an academy product has no value in terms of being an intangible. No sum for us to amortised .
I do believe the current regulations talk about amortised sums stopping and starting at point o registration but no where in the current regs can I find mention that in the likes of Hall the fee would in effect be back dated
Click to expand...

Hall transfer is this season, not next season irrespective of whether he is academy player or 100 million player.

Not sure how it's not obvious but then sometimes it is what it is.
 
Would Lewis Hall be a better option on the left wing than the £90m Murdyk?!?!? Already seen better output than the Ukrainian, despite not being his normal position.
 
Officially joined Newcastle, still astonished Chelsea let him go given their transfer strategy of signing promising youngsters.
 
WeePat said:
Newcastle has been interested all summer. There was a supposed 17M bid rejected months ago. The interest isn't new at all. Hall signed a new deal (according to Romano) and was ready to go to Palace on loan knowing of Newcastle's pursuit, so forgive me if I don't buy what you're selling here about Hall dragging his balls through broken glass to leave the club he's been at since 8.

Lots of players are fans of other clubs. Colwill is a supposed Liverpool fan but ignored their interest and signed a new deal. Luke Shaw is a Chelsea fan (I think?) but he rejected Chelsea to sign for United. I think Hall is leaving because Chelsea have decided to sacrifice him, which is awful in itself and I hate it but that's Chelsea at the moment.
Click to expand...

His own quotes say different. I can't think of a single example of a player who supports Newcastle rejecting the opportunity to sign for us, in my 35 years following the club.
 
Andy 1892 said:
His own quotes say different. I can't think of a single example of a player who supports Newcastle rejecting the opportunity to sign for us, in my 35 years following the club.
Click to expand...

He’s just signed for Newcastle. Of course he’s going to mention his connection to the city and his family. What I’m saying is, if Chelsea weren’t telling him they wanted to sell him, he would not be in Newcastle right now, evidenced by the fact that he signed a 7 year deal despite Newcastle pursuing him. Anyway, he’s gone now. I’m gutted. Enjoy him. He’s great.
 
The fact that they didn’t bother using him in the midst of an injury crisis told its own story. Seems like Newcastle will not be making the move permanent and he’ll be back at Chelsea next season. And in all honesty I’d want to recall him in January if he’s just going to warm the bench with limited minutes for the rest of the season.

 
He’s beginning to look like a great signing

Has nailed down that LB spot you feel.

Surely has to be in Tuchels plans for England
 
Him and Livramento are brilliant, smart signings for Newcastle.
 
Unfortunately, Livramento and Lamptey were never going to be able to displace James when he was fit. Hall would always be second-choice behind Chilwell before this season.
 
cotumely said:
Unfortunately, Livramento and Lamptey were never going to be able to displace James when he was fit. Hall would always be second-choice behind Chilwell before this season.
Click to expand...

I’m happy with how things ended up with Cucurella. We’re in a really good spot now with him but we went through some crazy growing pains to get here. It probably would have been a lot easier to just keep Hall around and let him naturally take over Chilwell’s spot. Stuff like this is why I say they used their resources horribly. We could have saved £60m and had ourselves just as good LB with the bonus of him being one of our own.

Livramento probably could have made the RB his own if he was a psychic and could see what James’ future looked like.
 
The way PSR are written, you can leverage the sale fees from home grown players for 5x the amount for transfers. The likes of private equity would always then look to exploit that along with selling assets to themselves and the rest. PSR should have been thought through properly before being introduced.

Hall not sold for footballing reasons, same as Gallagher and others. Just surprised other clubs not going down the same path more aggressively.
 
Mb194dc said:
The way PSR are written, you can leverage the sale fees from home grown players for 5x the amount for transfers. The likes of private equity would always then look to exploit that along with selling assets to themselves and the rest. PSR should have been thought through properly before being introduced.

Hall not sold for footballing reasons, same as Gallagher and others. Just surprised other clubs not going down the same path more aggressively.
Click to expand...

We were only in a PSR predicament because we spent so needlessly the first couple of windows under Boehly and Clearlake. Hall, Gallagher and the other academy players ended up being the sacrifice the club needed to make to make sure we stayed within the rules. That doesn’t mean it was unavoidable though.
 
WeePat said:
I’m happy with how things ended up with Cucurella. We’re in a really good spot now with him but we went through some crazy growing pains to get here. It probably would have been a lot easier to just keep Hall around and let him naturally take over Chilwell’s spot. Stuff like this is why I say they used their resources horribly. We could have saved £60m and had ourselves just as good LB with the bonus of him being one of our own.

Livramento probably could have made the RB his own if he was a psychic and could see what James’ future looked like.
Click to expand...

Still would of been much better not buying Cucurella for £60M and playing and keeping Lewis Hall.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.