Totally agree, there is clearly some corruption going on.
The lawmakers are unable to control the shenaningans between clubs who don't give a feck about rules. Makes it more likely Citeh will just get away with what they've done.
PSR Loopholes
- Thread starter Solius
- Start date
The lawmakers are unable to control the shenaningans between clubs who don't give a feck about rules. Makes it more likely Citeh will just get away with what they've done.
What is going on here? Does the money coming in go down as profit straight away, and the money going out get spread out over 5 years?
When a club buy a player, the cost on the accounts is ammortizised over the length of the contract. This is standard practice in all companies, not a football thing. A club isn't losing money when they aquire a player, so registrering money spent like that as a loss doesn't make any sense. You're exchanging an asset (typically cash or a promise of future payments) for another type of asset (the rights to the player's contract).
So if a club spends 50m on a player, they now have a combination of lower cash reserves and higher debt totalling to 50m, and in exchange they have a contract worth 50m. When the contract runs out it's worthless to the club, because the player can leave for free. If the contract is for 5 years, it therefore loses value at a rate of 10m per year.
For sales it's again handled like any other business. You sell an asset, subtract any remaining asset value from the sale price, and whatever sum that is will be the profit/loss.
As we are seeing with Villa, Chelsea & Everton clubs are working out how to get around the rules & manipulate the system. It will be interesting to see if the PL make a move to block big money moves between clubs who are obviously just juggling the books.
On another note I fully expect Man C to get away with there dodgy shenanigans.
So, the only thing I see feasible is having actual youth players, players that don’t toward FFP when you buy them, not counting the other way towards FFP when you sell them. If a club has the next Messi at 16, a club has him under agreement
We DO do right by the kids. What percentage of your academy’s kids ended up with top flight careers in Europe?
People have always asked (even though we have led the league in academy players minutes for the first team many times) “why would people go to Chelsea when they just churn out players?”
Answer: because we find them jobs. The players benefit on a grand scale. And in return for the massive investment, teams share in the profit that eventually comes from it.
Pretending this is about player welfare is disingenuous at best.
We DO do right by the kids. What percentage of your academy’s kids ended up with top flight careers in Europe?
People have always asked (even though we have led the league in academy players minutes for the first team many times) “why would people go to Chelsea when they just churn out players?”
Answer: because we find them jobs. The players benefit on a grand scale. And in return for the massive investment, teams share in the profit that eventually comes from it.
Pretending this is about player welfare is disingenuous at best.
Please explain what Chelsea get in return for this supposed conspiracy? I can see the others, because they were buying relatively unknown assets in both directions.
The league voted to allow infrastructure sales. So Chelsea had already passed PSR for the 2023 year. At LEAST 8 teams had serious interest in Ian Maatsen. He was a major commodity we frankly would have liked to keep. Most people felt he was grossly undervalued in his release clause.
So, we sold Maatsen for 2m above his clause in exchange for finance terms being granted, which is not unusual at all.
Then the idea is we intentionally overpaid for Omari Kellyman to … what? Reward them for winning the race to sign Maatsen?
From a Chelsea standpoint the narrative people seem to want to write doesn’t make sense.
Chelsea's approach is just different to some more traditional big clubs. To be honest, the approach looks like "If we throw enough shit at the wall, eventually some will stick. If not, we can bin them off for a profit."
I wouldn't say it's against player welfare or anything, I think it just seems more transactional and business motivated. Whereas, the Real Madrid's, Bayern's, City etc of this world (United of old) are a lot more methodical in their transfer spending. They are usually long-term admirers of the player, the interest is both ways etc etc.
Not saying Chelsea's way is wrong either. Young players go there knowing if it doesn't work out they're still at a much bigger platform to get a loan, or included in some swap deal these days, or break into the starting 11 and play at one of the bigger clubs in the PL.
There's a mutual benefit, but you can see why some fans don't care for it. As for Chelsea looking out for player welfare, I would hesitate to say it stretches beyond what you would expect from any employer.
Maybe it's because we're all so United centric, we don't see the other perspective. But when a Mainoo, or a Rashford comes through the academy, it feels like the entire club gets a lift and a new lease of life, there's that extra buzz and satisfaction, everyone is rooting for that player and United are very proud of their academy record. I'm sure it's the same in Chelsea, but we just don't 'experience' it. However, I also don't think we would have sold Mount if roles were reversed.
As for PSR loophole, I don't know why clubs aren't just required to do a valuation process for academy players when they sign a pro contract, and update those valuations on a yearly basis. Seems like the simple fix, whether it's based on something like comparable sales, or a contract value based approach or whatever. Removing that zero carrying value removes the incentive to doing these.
The supporters might have liked to have kept him but it doesn't look like the club itself cared much. Dortmund seemed like the primary team chasing him and they were looking to buy at a much lower rate than the release clause. So yeah, i think you both overvalued your players by about 10m
Also if the league voted to allow infrastructure sales then why did you need to appeal to have the hotel sale included?
Last edited:
It isn't the best way, really - not generally, just under certain circumstances. Selling them has a good PSR effect, but no more than players you've bought whose book value have been nearly or wholly written down (and who usually make a lot more money than young academy graduates). For instance, we'd make a bigger PSR gain selling Maguire for 30m than we will from selling Greenwood for the same amount.
And keeping them is also a lot more PSR-friendly than signing a new player, with not just higher wages and a big transfer fee to take on, but also a signing bonus and agent fees. If anything, and in the long run, the system really rewards you for using players you've developed yourself. I guess the real snag is if your academy players are really the players you need. Top teams usually have few but very specific needs.
Doesn't look relevant at first glance. I guess 'stealing' academy players like him or Musiala isn't great? But another subject probably
Don’t think this belongs in here. He’s a 15 year old who City have poached. Happens all the time at academy level.
Harsh on Chelsea. Musiala was only 8 when they „stole“ him.
You over paid massively for Omari Kellyman & it benefitted Villa. Why & what was the payoff I don't know but it's highly suspicious.
Elliot Anderson going for 35m is more of a concern than any of the other deals. 
Taking the absolute p**s
Elliot Anderson going for 35m is more of a concern than any of the other deals.
Most expensive Scottish footballer in history I think and not even capped.
Beating the record held by Alexis McAllister and previously Claude McAlele.
Elliot Anderson going for 35m is more of a concern than any of the other deals.
He's done alright when I've seen him for Newcastle. Problem last season is he was injured for half of it.
I notice Newcastle are getting the Forest reserve keeper Vlachodimos in...so they wanted a new keeper and were trying for likes of Ramsdale and the Georgian number one and now decided they'll take a Forest number 2 instead...
He lost his place after two months last season as he was dreadful on crosses.
Elliot Anderson going for 35m is more of a concern than any of the other deals.
100%. With this logic Pellistri is 50m since he is a starter for Uruguay... Question is why isn't Arsenal and United doing it? Should just swap Hannibal and ESR and say they are 50-60m each?
That would be extremely dumb from Arsenal, and probably for United as well.
You should set it all up, sell Pellestri to Arsenal and then pull out of the ESR deal at the last second.
Elliot Anderson going for 35m is more of a concern than any of the other deals.
I know Utd are crap at selling but that would rank like 5th on our all time sales and he’s an uncapped 21yo who can’t even get into his own club team regularly. It’s criminal.
They’re now being so open about it you almost admire the grift. The whole system is dumb, which is fitting, as they did this to themselves.
Using the Elliot Anderson example. Newcastle sell for 35, they can count that as pure profit before the deadline of June 30. Forest can split that 35M over the length of the contract. So it essentially works out as: Newcastle +35, Forest -7 on the books.
Now if what we think is happening with Elanga does actually materialise and Newcastle spend roughly the same in return, lets say 35M as a hypothetical. The net result is both teams being +28M on the profit sheet.
They're all going to flirt with the line even with the warning from the PL. One sucker club is going to go too far and pay for everyone. Everton should be careful
So Newcastle have just sold 2 players with a combined playing time of about 20 minutes for 70m quid? the fee just so happens to clear them for ffp
The feck is going on theres been more swap deals in the last week than there has for about 10 years
The feck is going on theres been more swap deals in the last week than there has for about 10 years
If you’ve noticed, it is only the 6 clubs reported as having PSR issues that are engaging in nonsense. Arsenal have managed their finances fine, so they have no need to engage in underhanded tactics and exploiting loopholes.
Not only no need, it would be directly damaging. It would give them a completely unneeded boost right now, in exchange for losses in the future when it might actually matter.
It seems like people think these deals are conjuring money from thin air, rather than just shifting numbers around from year to year.
Delaying a transfer via a loan + option to buy like we did with Raya is okay-ish since both clus are still dealing with a fair value for the player.
What's happening now is ridiculous and i hope we never have to do it. It was rumoured for the past 6 months that clubs were looking to offload academy players. The PL did nothing and only now issuing a "warning"...
Genuine question...what would people want the rules to be if they're unhappy about the swap deals? The two clubs to challenge the status quo in Newcastle and Villa are now two clubs that are needing to get involved in the shenanigans.
Keeping the rules as they are and removing these swap deals won't work unless all you want to do is give the big clubs protection from competition (as I think in the current state of rules it's near to impossible for smaller clubs to maintain a consistent challenge for top 4).
I think the only route is to completely reformat PSR.
Keeping the rules as they are and removing these swap deals won't work unless all you want to do is give the big clubs protection from competition (as I think in the current state of rules it's near to impossible for smaller clubs to maintain a consistent challenge for top 4).
I think the only route is to completely reformat PSR.
State of this.
More red cartel nonsence
There are some really shady deals going on right now. How can they pay these sums for some random unknown players?
Rule change in 3...2...1...
Clubs doing these dubious deals need to be mindful that the FA can refuse to ratify the transfers if they suspect inflated accounting valuations.
I can see that happening with some of the crap that's changing hands for silly prices.
Yeah true, the point is accepting an immediate boost to the books now in exchange for being on the hook for the next *insert length of contract* years. Clubs with no PSR issues doing this would be taking on the negative without needing the ‘positive’.
These aren’t real valuations though, so it’s difficult to use them as a reference point or benchmark for future sales. Everyone knows the numbers are what they are to fudge with the books.