PSR Loopholes

[deef]

Seriously, if you don't like the rules, just leave and do your own thing.

I know these rules are far from perfect and probably benefit the richer clubs, but every team signed up for them. Bypassing the rules gives you an unfair advantage over other teams. The tactics they are using to avoid consequences should also be punishable because it's obvious what they are doing and it's making a mockery of the whole system.

Its not smart, its basicly cheating.

 

[RedRocket9908]

So if Villa fail PSR this time around after overspending will Spurs (who finished only 2 points behind Villa) feel like they've been cheated out of a Champions League place by Villa and if so would they be able to sue Villa for loss of earnings over the Champions League money they'll miss out on?

 

[elmo]

Seriously, if you don't like the rules, just leave and do your own thing.

I know these rules are far from perfect and probably benefit the richer clubs, but every team signed up for them. Bypassing the rules gives you an unfair advantage over other teams. The tactics they are using to avoid consequences should also be punishable because it's obvious what they are doing and it's making a mockery of the whole system.

Its not smart, its basicly cheating.

If such a loophole is available to be exploited, it’s on the lawmakers to change it.

Not taking advantage of it is just plain stupid.

 

[Dr. Dwayne]

What these clubs, like Villa and Chelsea are doing, is basically money laundering.

No, it's not.

 

[Chipper]

How do these deals work precisely?

The clubs maintain they're seperate deals with one nothing to do with the other. I'm actually thinking about the potential for one club to rip the other off here, would that be possible?

Sell your unwanted youth player for an inflated fee but then pull out of the transfer to buy from the other club. If the deals are seperate entities what's to stop that? Could you not say you decided to focus on another target after a last minute change of mind? Free money!

 

[LochGormanAbú]

Surely when you consider duty of care for employees and especially young people, this is on so many levels wrong. A player being bought for maybe 30m and earning potentially a few hundred a week.

 

[Big Ben Foster]

How do these deals work precisely?

The clubs maintain they're seperate deals with one nothing to do with the other. I'm actually thinking about the potential for one club to rip the other off here, would that be possible?

Sell your unwanted youth player for an inflated fee but then pull out of the transfer to buy from the other club. If the deals are seperate entities what's to stop that? Could you not say you decided to focus on another target after a last minute change of mind? Free money!

Less incentive to defect when you know you're going to deal with these clubs again in the future. See: one-time prisoner's dilemma vs. iterated prisoner's dilemma.

 

[Chipper]

Less incentive to defect when you know you're going to deal with these clubs again in the future. See: one-time prisoner's dilemma vs. iterated prisoner's dilemma.

That's true, but maybe someone would be mad enough to try it? Even if they wouldn't I'm wondering about the legality of a club attempting it. Obviously it would be extremely dodgy, but are there any legally binding contracts to enforce these sorts of agreements or is it all a bit hush hush and behind closed doors?

Maybe the clubs push the button on the transfer simulateounsly in each other's presence to give themselves protection? That's one way around it. I've not been following these deals closely enough to know if the ones that have gone thorugh always happen on the same day.

 

[duffer]

Surely when you consider duty of care for employees and especially young people, this is on so many levels wrong. A player being bought for maybe 30m and earning potentially a few hundred a week.

You think these guys are going to be on a few hundred a week?

 

[SilentWitness]

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".

That would be bullshit and clubs would fight that and win.

 

[caid]

That would be bullshit and clubs would fight that and win.

Probably would but it would just reinforce the view that they no longer belong in the league. There needs to be some vague agreement as to what the rules in the league are.
To be honest i think we should leave the league, its gone too far and i dont think it can be brought back under control. Get out while the going is good. Even that shitty super league plan sounds attractive at this pont.

 

[WeePat]

Speaking of financial loopholes, about 5 years ago Villa's owners sold Villa Park to themselves and after a PL investigation, it was approved.

https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/aston-villa-stadium-sale-ffp-17865860

It adds that following a nine-month investigation, Premier League bosses have said they are fine with the reported £56.7m the club received for their ground from NSWE.

“The importance of that controversial property deal is laid bare in the accounts lodged with Companies House on Wednesday, as without (the stadium sale) their losses for a single season would have topped £100m,” the report says.


Football finance expert and University of Liverpool lecturer Kieran Maguire, told BirminghamLive yesterday that Villa had used a legitimate loophole to make a £36m profit from the sale of Villa Park last year.

 

[Bluelion7]

Chelsea were fine last year because they were able to sell a whole load of their players to Saudi clubs for decent fee's.

We were fine for last year due to the sale of the hotels as well.

For conspiracies it still does t answer why the purchases are one way? One person mentioned Carney’s 14 appearances for Villa; most were very brief cameos. He had two starts? And negligible minutes. Kellyman’s “potential” comes largely from his profile (they seem to LOVE tall but still agile attacking mids. See: Cesare Cadadei), and his England U19 stuff. And his U21 club stuff. Whatever value they see comes from scouting; just like Carney. Anselmino has made … 1 appearance for the Senior side for Boca Juniors? And he will cost about the same.

I dont like the Kellyman purchase because we have quite a few people of this profile, but he’s a very well thought of England youth international, and Casadei (a similar profile) might be sold… so whatever.

The question still remains: if Chelsea was colluding I would expect at LEAST 55m for Maatsen. Maatsen has a lot of suitors, he’s under a renewed contract, and most people thought his release clause was too low. We aren’t under time constraint, so how do Chelsea benefit from this if it is a scheme?

When the general accusation is that teams are “propping up” each other with inflated sales …. Then inflated value received by both parties seems requisite. Otherwise Villa got a cut rate price on an outstanding LB lots of clubs wanted, and we paid too much for a youth prospect? Doesn’t seem like a two way street.

 

[Bluelion7]

Probably would but it would just reinforce the view that they no longer belong in the league. There needs to be some vague agreement as to what the rules in the league are.
To be honest i think we should leave the league, its gone too far and i dont think it can be brought back under control. Get out while the going is good. Even that shitty super league plan sounds attractive at this pont.

Look at what you just wrote: “there needs to be some vague agreement”

…really?

There is such an agreement. And things like selling players going both ways in a deal and showing a value you need to on paper but not actually spending the money? You can catch people (Barca and Juve did this, right?).

If a Saudi team owned by relatives of the Newcastle owners bought their U21 goalkeeper for 200m … probably noticed pretty quickly.

People thinking Chelsea overpaid for an England youth international by 7 to 8m ? That definitely seems like a reason to just scrap the PL as an entity….

Thecrukes were meant to catch extreme aberrations or downright fraud in the transactions. Anything else and you venture into the territory of universal scouting, transfer market setting the prices for all players? It just does t work, and trying to make it work would just be disastrous.

 

[caid]

Look at what you just wrote: “there needs to be some vague agreement”

…really?

There is such an agreement. And things like selling players going both ways in a deal and showing a value you need to on paper but not actually spending the money? You can catch people (Barca and Juve did this, right?).

If a Saudi team owned by relatives of the Newcastle owners bought their U21 goalkeeper for 200m … probably noticed pretty quickly.

People thinking Chelsea overpaid for an England youth international by 7 to 8m ? That definitely seems like a reason to just scrap the PL as an entity….

Thecrukes were meant to catch extreme aberrations or downright fraud in the transactions. Anything else and you venture into the territory of universal scouting, transfer market setting the prices for all players? It just does t work, and trying to make it work would just be disastrous.

Frankly its more directed at Villa. At least 14 clubs voted for these rules, and they're making a mockery of them imo. If you cant even agree that the majority set the rules and you have to abide by them then everything else is a waste of time. Having clubs weaseling their way around rules with nonsense accounting tricks and threatening to drag lawyers into the mess when told to cop on is never going to work, its the point of no return were you just burn it down and start again.
Chelsea are a problem too mind you and i'd exclude them from any future competition.

 

[Uncle Mainoo]

Just remove full profit benefits for home grown players under 23 or less than 50 EPL appearances. Would remove all this rubbish.

There basically trading players like cattle with no real reasoning on how this is good for player development.

 

[Leftback99]

It will catch up with them eventually.

 

[deef]

If such a loophole is available to be exploited, it’s on the lawmakers to change it.

Not taking advantage of it is just plain stupid.

I agree to some extent, but as I said, it's basically blatant cheating. There is enough money in the Premier League; there's no need for such tricks if you manage your finances properly.

Or at lesst don’t cry about having to sell acadamy players

 

[Ekeke]

Sorry if I'm missing something obvious, but can someone explain to me what Villa are doing wrong with signing Dobbin for slightly more than they sold Iroegbenum to Everton?

My assumption was that Dobbin plays from the wing and Iroeg plays CM, so they simply wanted a winger instead of an extra CM where they felt they had more depth or a winger was leaving etc.

 

[Rozay]

Sorry if I'm missing something obvious, but can someone explain to me what Villa are doing wrong with signing Dobbin for slightly more than they sold Iroegbenum to Everton?

My assumption was that Dobbin plays from the wing and Iroeg plays CM, so they simply wanted a winger instead of an extra CM where they felt they had more depth or a winger was leaving etc.

I imagine that, as an amortised cost, especially with low wages considered - these signings would be negligible on the balance sheet, whereas the sale is recorded outright at the total figure. If you sell an academy player for 10m, you get 10m wiggle room on your annual balance sheet. If you buy an academy player for 10m on low wages on a long contract, you may be adding 3m per year to your annual balance sheet. By effectively ‘swapping’ academy players - both teams have 7m net profit to play with.

 

[Uncle Mainoo]

Sorry if I'm missing something obvious, but can someone explain to me what Villa are doing wrong with signing Dobbin for slightly more than they sold Iroegbenum to Everton?

My assumption was that Dobbin plays from the wing and Iroeg plays CM, so they simply wanted a winger instead of an extra CM where they felt they had more depth or a winger was leaving etc.

Have you ever heard of Dobbin? They sold Antony Gordon for £45m. He made 65 appearances for them and represented England u21’s where Aston Villa had high involvement due to a lot of work they have put into their youth team over the recent few years.

So what I find it hard to understand maybe some others included. Is who decided Dobbin was so valuable that he required a fee of half of what they sold Gordon for and to a club who has invested some much into their youth academy that they thought it was profitable to spend £20m on basically a youth prospect.

They had their own youth prospects in Kellyman who they have invested time and money in. So it’s of my belief that they sold him for PSR reasons only and in doing so replaced him with Dobbin to ensure Chelsea, Everton and they benefited. That is a big problem.

To make it relatable. We sell Mctominay for £40m to Chelsea. Newcastle buy Gallagher for £50m and we then buy Longstaff for £45m.

 

[visiting villain]

I mean, we are completing these transfers to make sure that we are in compliance with the PSR rules.

 

[Bluelion7]

Frankly its more directed at Villa. At least 14 clubs voted for these rules, and they're making a mockery of them imo. If you cant even agree that the majority set the rules and you have to abide by them then everything else is a waste of time. Having clubs weaseling their way around rules with nonsense accounting tricks and threatening to drag lawyers into the mess when told to cop on is never going to work, its the point of no return were you just burn it down and start again.
Chelsea are a problem too mind you and i'd exclude them from any future competition.

What rules have been broken? These are all very broad, sweeping assertions, but frankly Chelsea just have done a better job on focusing on youth development, finding the players that aren’t going to make our squad, and selling them and finding them jobs long term.

This isn’t a new thing, and it isn’t frowned upon: opposite really. Teams get credits toward things like PSR for youth investment and women’s investment. Who has a great women’s team? Also Chelsea.

It falls apart when you claim some sort of cabal of people selling worthless assets to each other to scrape by FFP if that assertion includes Chelsea. It just doesnt work to fit your agenda. Ian Maatsen is undervalued, many teams want him, and we were already in compliance for 23/24.

This fixation with other teams spending money they want to spend just because they don’t want their personal team passed by is going to do far more damage to the league and the teams in it, especially as they try to compete on a fair footing with the rest of Europe.

If you want full league growth and open accountability at the same time, put together a combination of soft caps along with luxury taxes. Luxury tax money evenly distributed to all league teams. Teams like United immediately voted against anchoring that would have forced you to spend around a set number related to other clubs. You don’t care about fairness; you just want the things that favor you to stay, and the things that do favor you, even if they are within the rules, to go.

 

[WeePat]

Have you ever heard of Dobbin? They sold Antony Gordon for £45m. He made 65 appearances for them and represented England u21’s where Aston Villa had high involvement due to a lot of work they have put into their youth team over the recent few years.

So what I find it hard to understand maybe some others included. Is who decided Dobbin was so valuable that he required a fee of half of what they sold Gordon for and to a club who has invested some much into their youth academy that they thought it was profitable to spend £20m on basically a youth prospect.

They had their own youth prospects in Kellyman who they have invested time and money in. So it’s of my belief that they sold him for PSR reasons only and in doing so replaced him with Dobbin to ensure Chelsea, Everton and they benefited. That is a big problem.

To make it relatable. We sell Mctominay for £40m to Chelsea. Newcastle buy Gallagher for £50m and we then buy Longstaff for £45m.

That is exactly what is going on.

 

[Bluelion7]

Have you ever heard of Dobbin? They sold Antony Gordon for £45m. He made 65 appearances for them and represented England u21’s where Aston Villa had high involvement due to a lot of work they have put into their youth team over the recent few years.

So what I find it hard to understand maybe some others included. Is who decided Dobbin was so valuable that he required a fee of half of what they sold Gordon for and to a club who has invested some much into their youth academy that they thought it was profitable to spend £20m on basically a youth prospect.

They had their own youth prospects in Kellyman who they have invested time and money in. So it’s of my belief that they sold him for PSR reasons only and in doing so replaced him with Dobbin to ensure Chelsea, Everton and they benefited. That is a big problem.

To make it relatable. We sell Mctominay for £40m to Chelsea. Newcastle buy Gallagher for £50m and we then buy Longstaff for £45m.

You mentioned Gordon and burned your whole argument: before the Mudryk buys and such people thought we were crazy for going so hard for Gordon. Fans on this forum ridiculed Chelsea’s ownership and scouts. We couldn’t get a deal done and they wanted near 100m.

Fast forward and Everton are in a different position. And the teams die ding we’re in a different position: so he goes for 45 and they lied out. The market is what it is. People are cherry picking situations that helped teams, and ignoring their own examples where the simple volatility of a free market hurt the very same teams

 

[SilentWitness]

Overinflated fees have been happening for years. Liverpool sold players like Ibe and the like for stonking figures, City sold a bunch to Southampton for overpriced fees etc.

 

[NotThatSoph]

10m is also not half of 45m.

 

[Bluelion7]

Just remove full profit benefits for home grown players under 23 or less than 50 EPL appearances. Would remove all this rubbish.

There basically trading players like cattle with no real reasoning on how this is good for player development.

Youth development would take a MAJOR hit. So, you are saying the best way for your team to feel things work better for them is to take away the investment that makes kids at all levels better and drives the talent pipeline of whole nation?

These youths getting sold are getting ultimately what they wanted: they sign in to the better development academies hoping to have jobs as professional football players. They don’t always make the team they originally wanted to, but when they have a successful career 5 years down the line at somewhere like AC Milan, I suppose that’s just complete garbage?

They made youth investment a priority for a reason. Some of your teams just don’t want to put the work and the money in.

 

[Rozay]

The rules are there and clubs have to be creative to satisfy their own objectives while also satisfying the rules. If they manage to do that, not really much to discuss, except for maybe changing said rules - but clearly no investigation required. You have to wonder why we, who are in such desperate need, are not doing the same. I like to think that we are doing more than we let on, instead of just blaming PSR for restricting us from strengthening our squad.

Even Everton, who were somehow supposed to be in dire straits and closer to the edge than us have started this market more aggressively and have been more focused on buying rather than selling.

 

[Uncle Mainoo]

Youth development would take a MAJOR hit. So, you are saying the best way for your team to feel things work better for them is to take away the investment that makes kids at all levels better and drives the talent pipeline of whole nation?

These youths getting sold are getting ultimately what they wanted: they sign in to the better development academies hoping to have jobs as professional football players. They don’t always make the team they originally wanted to, but when they have a successful career 5 years down the line at somewhere like AC Milan, I suppose that’s just complete garbage?

They made youth investment a priority for a reason. Some of your teams just don’t want to put the work and the money in.

Your miss interpreting my point. Having a youth model where you stock pile kids, send them on various loans to gain experience and exposure then sell them for profit. Unique at the time but held its benefits. As you’ve pointed out with Tomori (I assume).

However shifting youth players around at inflated values to clear PSR penalties does not seem like a well thought out model benefiting both the players and clubs. What I was trying to point out is the history behind the moves. It’s clear why Gordon was a valuable asset on the market it was even clear why Livermento was a well scouting valuable acquisition by Southampton. These deals are just for one reason only.

 

[Ekeke]

Have you ever heard of Dobbin? They sold Antony Gordon for £45m. He made 65 appearances for them and represented England u21’s where Aston Villa had high involvement due to a lot of work they have put into their youth team over the recent few years.

So what I find it hard to understand maybe some others included. Is who decided Dobbin was so valuable that he required a fee of half of what they sold Gordon for and to a club who has invested some much into their youth academy that they thought it was profitable to spend £20m on basically a youth prospect.

They had their own youth prospects in Kellyman who they have invested time and money in. So it’s of my belief that they sold him for PSR reasons only and in doing so replaced him with Dobbin to ensure Chelsea, Everton and they benefited. That is a big problem.

To make it relatable. We sell Mctominay for £40m to Chelsea. Newcastle buy Gallagher for £50m and we then buy Longstaff for £45m.

Yes I've seen Dobbin several times. Have you not seen Everton play this season? He came on as a late sub often.

Kellyman is a striker (7 games as striker for their u21s, 2 games on the right wing.) that has barely made sub appearances partly because hes 18 not 21, Dobbin plays wide, Olongname plays central midfield

I would say that £11 million does sound high for Dobbin but when they are essentially swapping him for Olongname + £1 million it doesnt really matter if they are sold for £2 and £3 million or £21 and £20 million. Its a swap with slightly more money for Dobbin on top which is not inconceivable since he got more premier league experience while Olongname got less. He did score a great goal from outside the box recently for England under 21s. But as far as I understand it hes not expected to be making that a habit and isnt considered a great prospect.

To be fair Villa have plenty of players in each position but they will know who they are letting leave and whether they will spend big to replace them. Zaniolo has been linked with a move away, maybe Dobbin is just to be a squad option for depth

 

[caid]

What rules have been broken? These are all very broad, sweeping assertions, but frankly Chelsea just have done a better job on focusing on youth development, finding the players that aren’t going to make our squad, and selling them and finding them jobs long term.

This isn’t a new thing, and it isn’t frowned upon: opposite really. Teams get credits toward things like PSR for youth investment and women’s investment. Who has a great women’s team? Also Chelsea.

It falls apart when you claim some sort of cabal of people selling worthless assets to each other to scrape by FFP if that assertion includes Chelsea. It just doesnt work to fit your agenda. Ian Maatsen is undervalued, many teams want him, and we were already in compliance for 23/24.

This fixation with other teams spending money they want to spend just because they don’t want their personal team passed by is going to do far more damage to the league and the teams in it, especially as they try to compete on a fair footing with the rest of Europe.

If you want full league growth and open accountability at the same time, put together a combination of soft caps along with luxury taxes. Luxury tax money evenly distributed to all league teams. Teams like United immediately voted against anchoring that would have forced you to spend around a set number related to other clubs. You don’t care about fairness; you just want the things that favor you to stay, and the things that do favor you, even if they are within the rules, to go.

Yeah, they're broad, sweeping assertions.
I think they should close this loophole. I think its cynical and kind of scabby to the players involved. I think its the same junk that Juventus were messing with for years and were charged and docked points for last season. I'd be extremely pissed if i had to drag it through courts and lawyers in order to change it.
I think the league in its current format is broken and needs drastic changes.
If you made me king of football for the day then this version of united wouldn't qualify for a reformed league. Multi club ownership is an obvious disqualifier. Reforming the fit and proper owner test would clearly be necessary and I dont see how the glazers pass that. I'd bring in anchoring too.

As for chelsea i'd be getting really fecking tired of this annual game of whack a mole with you cynically exploiting a loophole to undermine a financial rule. Your a big fecking nuisance.

 

[Bluelion7]

Your miss interpreting my point. Having a youth model where you stock pile kids, send them on various loans to gain experience and exposure then sell them for profit. Unique at the time but held its benefits. As you’ve pointed out with Tomori (I assume).

However shifting youth players around at inflated values to clear PSR penalties does not seem like a well thought out model benefiting both the players and clubs. What I was trying to point out is the history behind the moves. It’s clear why Gordon was a valuable asset on the market it was even clear why Livermento was a well scouting valuable acquisition by Southampton. These deals are just for one reason only.

Just Tomori? You accidentally mentioned another in the same post: Livramento is a Chelsea product. Guehi, Musiala, Michael Olise, Dominic Solanke … frankly there are first divisions of leagues all over Europe littered with Chelsea creations.

Is part of that because they intentionally made youth investment an avenue to being able to spend more? Absolutely. But they got what they wanted from it:

Fans misunderstand what players want. They want to play at a high level professionally: that’s it. The academy’s that do the best job of putting players in that position at a high rate are the ones they flock to.

And the league and country want the same thing.

And the idea that all these prospects are turned into PSR cache is simply wrong. A great deal of the time the team crating talent for others gets almost nothing in return save the base credits youth investment get you. We only got 175k for Musiala.

If you wanted to “artificially inflate” values of prospects to meet PSR that may work … once… twice? Because eventually they would have to be paid for and it would build up in a cascade of carrying over debt against the cap each year. You wouldn’t need a rule … it just would fail.

Clearlake has a plan to make money on their youth investment if they don’t stay with the team, and so far they’ve been right, even when people told them they were crazy. Omari and Datro Fofana have doubled in value just in their own.

That’s good business AND developing players for teams.

 

[Uncle Mainoo]

Just Tomori? You accidentally mentioned another in the same post: Livramento is a Chelsea product. Guehi, Musiala, Michael Olise, Dominic Solanke … frankly there are first divisions of leagues all over Europe littered with Chelsea creations.

Is part of that because they intentionally made youth investment an avenue to being able to spend more? Absolutely. But they got what they wanted from it:

Fans misunderstand what players want. They want to play at a high level professionally: that’s it. The academy’s that do the best job of putting players in that position at a high rate are the ones they flock to.

And the league and country want the same thing.

And the idea that all these prospects are turned into PSR cache is simply wrong. A great deal of the time the team crating talent for others gets almost nothing in return save the base credits youth investment get you. We only got 175k for Musiala.

If you wanted to “artificially inflate” values of prospects to meet PSR that may work … once… twice? Because eventually they would have to be paid for and it would build up in a cascade of carrying over debt against the cap each year. You wouldn’t need a rule … it just would fail.

Clearlake has a plan to make money on their youth investment if they don’t stay with the team, and so far they’ve been right, even when people told them they were crazy. Omari and Datro Fofana have doubled in value just in their own.

That’s good business AND developing players for teams.

It wasn’t by accident I know where he came from and I agree with you. My issues was deals that’s have been done for PSR only and at inflated prices. No issues with what you did with Fofana and the 100 plus Brazilian’s your are buying for probably the same reason no matter the occasion “next Neymar” PR.

You mentioned Musiala and that’s a prime example of where you as a club miss out but it also points to where transfers are rigged and where naturally poaching has occurred.

 

[Acrobat7]

It wasn’t by accident I know where he came from and I agree with you. My issues was deals that’s have been done for PSR only and at inflated prices. No issues with what you did with Fofana and the 100 plus Brazilian’s your are buying for probably the same reason no matter the occasion “next Neymar” PR.

You mentioned Musiala and that’s a prime example of where you as a club miss out but it also points to where transfers are rigged and where naturally poaching has occurred.

There was absolutely nothing Chelsea could have done to keep Musiala.

 

[thisisnottaken1]

Just Tomori? You accidentally mentioned another in the same post: Livramento is a Chelsea product. Guehi, Musiala, Michael Olise, Dominic Solanke … frankly there are first divisions of leagues all over Europe littered with Chelsea creations.

Is part of that because they intentionally made youth investment an avenue to being able to spend more? Absolutely. But they got what they wanted from it:

Fans misunderstand what players want. They want to play at a high level professionally: that’s it. The academy’s that do the best job of putting players in that position at a high rate are the ones they flock to.

And the league and country want the same thing.

And the idea that all these prospects are turned into PSR cache is simply wrong. A great deal of the time the team crating talent for others gets almost nothing in return save the base credits youth investment get you. We only got 175k for Musiala.

If you wanted to “artificially inflate” values of prospects to meet PSR that may work … once… twice? Because eventually they would have to be paid for and it would build up in a cascade of carrying over debt against the cap each year. You wouldn’t need a rule … it just would fail.

Clearlake has a plan to make money on their youth investment if they don’t stay with the team, and so far they’ve been right, even when people told them they were crazy. Omari and Datro Fofana have doubled in value just in their own.

That’s good business AND developing players for teams.

I thought Solanke was a Liverpool academy product?

 

[Santos J]

I thought Solanke was a Liverpool academy product?

Nope he joined Liverpool from Chelsea when he was 19/20.

 

[WeePat]

I thought Solanke was a Liverpool academy product?

Solanke was in the Chelsea academy, same age group as Tomori, Abraham etc. I don’t think he spent more than 1 year at Liverpool before they got rid of him.

 

[WeePat]

There was absolutely nothing Chelsea could have done to keep Musiala.

I’m glad you’re around to point this stuff out because I’ve said it so much now I just let it slide unchallenged

 

[Bluelion7]

I thought Solanke was a Liverpool academy product?

No, sold from our to Liverpool .

I get the idea people have that it can be exploited. But my point is that, even in these latest transactions, that assertion seems implausible, and in no way justifies over regulating a free market system in place since the sport basically began to the point you could endanger the sport.

I can only speak to this latest transaction from a Chelsea perspective: the assumptions people are making assume we wanted to give Aston Villa charity? Maatsen is worth MORE than 37m imho. I have no idea if Kellyman is worth 19, but he’s an England youth international Rooney tipped for big things 2 years ago. But if he is inflated, then that inflation went only one way, so the conspiracy makes little sense.

What you are seeing is a predictable but for some reason unforeseen consequence of the stupid FFP rules: very good, established players in their late 20’s are becoming borderline worthless. At the salaries they deserve it becomes almost impossible to spread their value over their time and maintain PSR stability.

Youth players will continue to be inflated because Chelsea isn’t the only team that has realized PSR is going to force everyone in that direction eventually.