I'm really struggling to remember who City bought off Southampton in these two way deals
PSR Loopholes
- Thread starter Solius
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
I would love to know how City manage to get £19m each for 2 young keepers with no top flight expirience yet we could only get £7m for Kovar
James Trafford was doing really well for the England U21 team so there was a lot of hype around him.
Who was the other one that went for 19m? I genuinely can't think of who it is.
[QUOTE="duffer, post: 32096636,
Who was the other one that went for 19m? I genuinely can't think of who it is.
[/QUOTE]
Gavin Bazunu
Who was the other one that went for 19m? I genuinely can't think of who it is.
[/QUOTE]
Gavin Bazunu
Gavin Bazunu
Bazunu went for £12m. He has been Southampton's first choice since the deal, and for the Ireland national team.
Kovar, several years older than both, has been a clear second choice since he left. One game in the Bundesliga, otherwise a cup keeper.
Kovar, several years older than both, has been a clear second choice since he left. One game in the Bundesliga, otherwise a cup keeper.
We also have a buyback clause for Kovar.
Angus Gunn was the overpriced keeper, went for 13.5m in summer 2018.
Angus Gunn: Southampton complete signing of £13.5m deal for Man City goalkeeper - BBC Sport
22 games and then signed for Norwich for a couple of million in summer 2021 so that was a very generous valuation at the time.
Angus Gunn: Southampton complete signing of £13.5m deal for Man City goalkeeper - BBC Sport
22 games and then signed for Norwich for a couple of million in summer 2021 so that was a very generous valuation at the time.
It's not two way, just Southampton endlessly signing Man. City youth players for the last six summers with only two (Bazunu and Lavia) making a serious impact in their first team.
Even this season in the championship Charles, Larios, Edozie have all been pretty much fringe players and behind loan signings in the pecking order.
There’s probably something very clever and elegant that you could do in this space. I’ve not thought about it long enough, but tossing around some ideas;
- Sale Value of academy assets are not discountable at point of sale, but a small % of PSR headroom is granted if an academy product under a certain age makes X number of appearances at another club after sale.
That’s full of holes as another club controls whether the selling club sees that benefit. But make the period 5 years or something and it dilutes negative gearing.
- Perhaps legislation for first option buy back clauses for academy players sold before a certain age.
None of these daft initial suggestions to help clubs, but to engender the release and movement of talent with a POTENTIAL upside for helping young players, and not this instant binary cost/benefit decision involved.
The current system is a mess.
So my question then is, what have Southampton gained from this?
I cant imagine they're just giving City a load of money for a laugh
They flipped Lavia after relegation so that was important for their finances given Chelsea paid 50m.
Bazunu still very young for a keeper and been up and down in form. Will miss most of next season injured.
The others just haven't stepped up.
Shay Charles a Northern Ireland international but he was bench warming in the crucial part of the season behind Will Smallbone and Flynn Downes.
Edozie I thought would be good in the championship but 6 goals in 32 games really isn't that good and only started one game for them in last three months of the season.
Larios has played 5 games.
Think Saints are one of the few prem clubs on here not represented by anyone so would love to know their opinion and if I've called any of that wrong.
So what you're saying is, Southampton took a risk on some players, some worked out, some didn't.
What you and Chelsea are doing, is swapping players to get passed rules. Completely different.
Kellyman... 19m?
Not sure how you're comparing the situations with a straight face
Kellyman and Dobbin for the fees they've moved for are certainly being manipulated to get around FFP this summer, not disputing that one bit.
Just saying paying over the odds for academy players isn't a new concept and indeed under their old ownership model Chelsea were probably the first club to perfect that with all the young players they signed, pretty much straight away loaned out and then sold for 15-20m.
Pasalic is the only player I can think of that fits this description. Almost all of the young players we’ve sold for a decent fee have come straight from the academy.
I genuinely don't think Chelsea have done this much at all.
Maatsen fits the bill kinda but even he spent a year or so in the academy. Most of the rest of our recent sales all had significant first team opportunities before they were sold are were at the academy since they were 9 (Tammy, Tomori, Mount, RLC, CHO).
To be honest I think breaking up the league is becoming the only plausible way forward. At least 14 clubs voted to introduce these rules, you'd presume they still basically support them even if maybe everton are taking a needs must kind of attitude to it. You've got a minority of clubs basically deciding they dont like the rules and are going to be bend and ignore them and make no attempt to even pretend to abide by them.
The agenda's and wants of where teams want to go, how they want to operate has just been stretched too far to have a meaningful competition between Villa, City, Newcastle vs. Sheffield United, Luton, Ipswich etc. Theres hardly any point to matches between them while severely restricting the former. They would be a complete farce if you let teams spend as they please.
The agenda's and wants of where teams want to go, how they want to operate has just been stretched too far to have a meaningful competition between Villa, City, Newcastle vs. Sheffield United, Luton, Ipswich etc. Theres hardly any point to matches between them while severely restricting the former. They would be a complete farce if you let teams spend as they please.
Last edited:
Has PSR always been a thing? I don't recall anybody talking about it before the last few months
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
One look at that account will tell you it’s fake. Come on man
" Everything | post is fake/made up/make believe/false/parody/fabricated/etc "One look at that account will tell you it’s fake. Come on man
How do you begin to assess if something is in good faith or not? It becomes murky water.
Seems very unenforceable.
They're either going to have to find a way to rewrite the rules to make this sort of move undesirable, or simply accept that it's going to become part of football.
In a lot of cases if will be murky but in some (these recent swaps) it's totally obvious.
Would not be hard to put in a line about "reasonable market value as deemed by us if clubs are transferring more than 1 player in a 12 month period".
And how would you possibly decide what’s “fair market value” for a footballer? And who decides that?
Seems completely unenforceable legally speaking and unfair for a selling club who may value their player far higher than what some suit in an office who has never seen the kid play says he’s worth.
Let’s say the PL or whoever says ”fair market value for this guy is £5m,” but the club who he plays for thinks he’s worth £20m and a buying club is willing to pay that £20m? How/why should that be stopped?
A player is worth whatever a buyer is willing to pay. There shouldn’t be arbitrary caps decided by a governing body.
Seems completely unenforceable legally speaking and unfair for a selling club who may value their player far higher than what some suit in an office who has never seen the kid play says he’s worth.
Let’s say the PL or whoever says ”fair market value for this guy is £5m,” but the club who he plays for thinks he’s worth £20m and a buying club is willing to pay that £20m? How/why should that be stopped?
A player is worth whatever a buyer is willing to pay. There shouldn’t be arbitrary caps decided by a governing body.
By looking at similar profile players and what they went for in recent seasons. Anything massively out of sync could be voted on by the clubs as to whether or not it's reasonable.
They're not arsed about a player going for £20 million one way.
It's an academy graduate from club A moving to club B for £40 million, while an academy graduate (that's barely played any senior football) moves from club B to club A for £20 million, despite neither being worth those fees.
Punish them all, it's clear what they're doing.
Punish them for breaking what rule?
There were probably loads of young players last season with a similar profile to Cole Palmer. Young lads with just a handful of cameo appearances for a big club. Would it have been fair if someone decided his market value was like £10m when City valued him at and we were gladly willing to pay £45m?
To me that seems silly.
Palmer didn't cost £45 million and had played way more than "a handful" of games.
Palmer had played 41 games for the best team in the world. Little different to the profile of players whose values are being inflated.
Also, he wasn't part of an obvious two way FFP dodge like these recent kids.
See, the only thing that seems silly in this is the implication that Maatsen was somehow overpriced; they paid 2m over his release clause so that they could get finance terms. A release clause that most Chelsea fans already thought was too low.
This whole line of thinking only works if you think both parties sold over inflated assets to help each other.
Villa has turned around and joined the fight for one of our targets.
And we were already fine for June 30th. I would doubt Maatsen is being counted backwards. In fact, I could be mistaken but I believe they already counted Lewis Hall towards next year as well.
So from the Chelsea angle …. We overpaid to make … friends?
19 is less than what we paid for Carney Chukwemeka, and his profile wasn’t a lot different.
This whole line of thinking only works if you think both parties sold over inflated assets to help each other.
Villa has turned around and joined the fight for one of our targets.
And we were already fine for June 30th. I would doubt Maatsen is being counted backwards. In fact, I could be mistaken but I believe they already counted Lewis Hall towards next year as well.
So from the Chelsea angle …. We overpaid to make … friends?
19 is less than what we paid for Carney Chukwemeka, and his profile wasn’t a lot different.
My mistake, 40m not 45.
So you’re only talking about the sketchy 2 way deals, not inflated prices for isolated deals?
Yes. The "PSR Loophole" transfers, that's what this thread is about.
Chukwemeka had made 14 PL appearances for Villa across two seasons before moving to Chelsea.
Kellyman made his senior debut this season and appeared just twice in the PL for them.
It'd have been like a team spending £20 million on James Wilson based on those couple of games he played for us in Giggs' interim stint.
Chelsea were fine last year because they were able to sell a whole load of their players to Saudi clubs for decent fee's.
"A whole load" = 2.
Sorry I thought there was a few but it seems only Mendy, Koulibaly, and Kante were sold to Saudi
Kante wasn't sold to anybody. He left Chelsea on a free transfer after his contract ran out. Chelsea got nothing for him.
In the style of Charles from Brooklyn 99...."loop......hole" "loop......hole"