Czarnikjak

4 minutes ago, HalfTimePost said:

 

We already do this with Konsa, Pau and Carlos regularly. It's been Emerys thing for a while (Foyth at Villareal).

Yes, this gives up an option to do it on the other side aswell if needed. RB Konsa Pau Hermoso

2 minutes ago, HalfTimePost said:

We also trialled 3 at the back, went very badly, but maybe it's more in our playbook next year?

Or Pau sits out cups. He's been used sparingly, maybe his time needs to be managed longer term

Seems to be a trend recently that top teams play 4 at the back, but 3 of them are CBs. Ie Gvardiol for city, White for Arsenal. 

I imagine Hermoso would fit that bill perfectly.

5 minutes ago, Villaphan04 said:

yep, that's why i'm a bit surprised it took this long for something like that to come out. But, I think this really puts Everton in a pickle

Reading reputable Everton sources, there is another buyer (who actually has the money) ready to step in as soon as the 777 house of cards dissappears from the Everton picture (it will happen very soon now).

6 minutes ago, Villaphan04 said:

uh oh, trouble in paradise.

 

 

 

They are bunch of crooks. But tbh, if you follow that saga, it was pretty obvious for months now that 777 will never be allowed to take over Everton.

6 minutes ago, Pongo Waring said:

should've

Thank you. "Should of" doesn't mean anything and annoys me very much

1 minute ago, WallisFrizz said:

Is it possible that Forest’s appeal gets sorted this week? If they get a point back,  It could relegate Burnley cos their GD is so bad.

Chances of Forest winning the appeal are very slim though.

1 minute ago, OutByEaster? said:

So in this case, the downside for the selling club (Villa) when we buy the player back is that we have a value based on the price we paid which we need to amortise (and I guess we could reduce that by buying him back and putting him on a six year deal) but the benefit is that as well as the amortisation problem you also have the asset to sell. So you're looking at one year of amortisation cost against the value of the player if you're planning a quick sale?

 

If you sell immediately again, you don't have anything to amortise (well maybe 1 day of his contract which would be peanuts). You just need to make sure you are selling for at least the same amount you bought him back for.

1 minute ago, OutByEaster? said:

So in this case - we sold Archer for £9m - and we bank all of that on our PSR.

Sheff Utd put in a quarter of that (4yr deal) on their PSR so £2.25m.

We agree to buy him back for, say, £6.75m which covers the remaining amount they have on their books for him or less if they'd agreed to that when they took him on.

We sell him this summer for £12m.

We can bank £9m for last seasons PSR when we sold him and £5.25m this summer when we sell him, for a total PSR profit of £14.25m?

Correcto, you're welcome.

1 minute ago, OutByEaster? said:

Wait, what?

That's what you've been telling me is wrong - I'm trying to figure out which bit I'm not getting - don't tell me I'm right! 

Lol,

The downside of this for the selling club is that now when you buy the player back you end up with £4m to amortise.

If you simply loaned the player for a year your don't have that £4m problem.

1 minute ago, OutByEaster? said:

So from a PSR perspective, as a seller, a one year loan with a £1m fee banks you a million, but selling a player for £5m and buying him back for £4m a year later banks you £5m and you still have the player.

And as a buyer, buying a player for £5m over five years means you amortise him at £1m a year and take that PSR hit, then selling him a year later for £4m means you come out even on PSR (four years of one million) and have paid a million pounds for one year of that player?

 

Correct. You getting there finally

Just now, OutByEaster? said:

So why put players on long contracts?

Are there different rules when selling a player (book the whole lot immediately) to when buying a player (where the PSR value is taken a year at a time)?

(I should point out that I don't doubt for a minute that you're right, I just can't get my head around it)

Because when you buy someone for £50m fee (book value, regardless of cash installments), on 1 year contract PSR cost is £50m for that year. On 5 years contract, PSR cost is only £10m for that year (50m/5).

Yes different between selling and buying.

1 minute ago, OutByEaster? said:

If Sheffield Utd were to sell him on to someone else - would that £200m still be with them, or with the team that bought the player?

The £200m doesn't really exist surely if we're saying that the PSR figure and the real figure don't need to be the same?

I'd they bought him from us for £200m on 200 year contract, they would need to sell him this summer for £199m, anything less than that would count as loss on their PSR calculation.

Regardless if any cash out of this £200m actually changed any hands!

1 minute ago, OutByEaster? said:

But don't teams tend to book purchases on a basis of spreading that cost over a number of years - in the same way that Chelsea do?

So Sheffield would book £1m of that £200m then write the rest off when they no longer have the obligation to pay it?

 

Player value "write offs" also count towards your PSR calculation. You can't just magically erase that £200m from your accounts without psr consequences.

7 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

Yes, exactly. The book value counts on the sale - but the real value counts when actually trading the player.

if it wasn't for the new rules on contract length, we could sell him to Leicester on a £200m, 200 year deal for a million a year, then buy him back one season later after they'd paid us a million for next to nothing and bank £199m+ for our PSR calculation. As it is, we can sell him for a massive fee over six years, then buy him back for a sixth or less and make a big profit on him twice - yes please!

That seems a pretty big loophole in the PSR calculation!

Just remember there are 2 parties to it. If Sheffield bought him for £200m (book) they would need to sell him back to us for close to that £200m (book). Otherwise their are making massive PSR loss! 

So we end up having £200m to amortise if we don't sell him on again for £200m or more

2 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

So in this case we sold for a book £9m - but we're buying back on a proportion of the actual payments we've received (a lot less than £9m)?

So in principle can we sell Archer to Leicester this summer for £30m (spread over his 6 year contract with them) receive £5m from them as the first instalment, then buy him back for £4m of the £5m they paid the following summer?

So instead of booking a £1m loan fee, we book a £26m profit and still keep the player?

 

 

Lol, you again bringing in cash payments and installments to the calculation. They don't matter to the PSR calculation.

If we bring him back for £7m and immediately sell for £30m (regardless of agreed payment plan) we straight away book £23m profit on player sale.

2 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

I am confused but I'm confused by the difference in money changing hands - from the sound of things we can book a whole fee for a player who leaves, but the buyback is based on the actual money that changed hands - so in this case we book the whole £9m even though we only receive half, and the buyback is based on the figure that's the actual money that changes hands.

Can you book a whole fee when you sell a player even if you don't ultimately receive it all?

You need to forget when and how much actual cash changes hands, from Profit and Loss standpoint (and current PSR rules) it doesn't matter.

When you sell, you book whole sell value immediately (excluding conditional addons).

When you buy, you start amortising the fee over the course of whole contract.

To calculate Profit on player sale you takeaway any remaining non-amortised book value of the player from the agreed selling fee (booked, irrelevant of cash installments).

So if  the buy back clause is £7m and we want to sell him again next day, he's non-amortised value on our books is still going to be £7m. So to make any profit on player sale again, we need to sell him for more than £7m

1 hour ago, OutByEaster? said:

So potentially anything we get over and above the £3.4m we've bought him back for is profit?

So we've sold him for (book) £9m and we can sell him again for about the same?

If we can do the same deal with Leicester as we did with Sheffield Utd then sell him next summer - he could end up making us an absolute fortune!

 

You might be getting confused here.

If Sheffield bought him for £9m (book) there's no way the buyback clause is only £3.4m (book). It would make no sense from their point of view. Probably closer to £7m.

So to make profit on him again this summer, we would need to sell him for more than the buyback clause is, as his buyback purchase price (let's say that  £7m) is not amortised yet at all, hence whole £7m is still on our books.

5 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

So in theory, it's possible that (on paper) we sold him for £18m last summer and are buying him back for £3.4m this summer?

That would be beautiful.

No, That sounds too good to be true. If of that £18 only £9m was guaranteed and £9m were conditional addons (as others said here, I don't know), then we would have only booked £9m for his sale. Conditional addons are only booked when conditions are met.

Also if for example we buying him back for £10m and signing again on 5 year contract, from psr perspective it actually only costs us £2m this season.

8 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

So in terms of the regulations, what would we have booked as profit on him last summer - if we're able to book the 'agreed' figure rather than the delivered increment then it's a work of genius. Not sure that would be the case though.

In terms of contract, does anyone know how long he'll come back to us carrying? 

If he has a few years left, I guess a loan is more viable whereas if it's only one or two we might need to cash in earlier rather than later.

 

Profit and Loss account (and thus the PSR rules) don't care how you structure the payment installments. Whole value of transaction gets booked immediately (excluding any conditional addons - they only kick in when conditions are met).

8 hours ago, paul514 said:

There is some right toss on here.

We know what the situation was 1 year ago from the accounts and we can make good guesses from there.

We categorically would not have signed players in January if we had an issue with this seasons compliance.

As for wanting bigger FFP limits, I could go on and on about why a club may want that, it's totally irrelevant though to a club who expects or thinks they may be able to qualify for european competition as their rules are harsher and those clubs have to comply with them.

I see many people making the same argument.

"We cannot be in ffp red zone this season, otherwise we wouldn't buy any players in January"

I don't agree with that, and looking at the numbers involved explains why.

Total sum of wages and amortisation for  all players we bought this January is about £10m per year. Divide it by 2, as they are only on our books for half of this season, and they only adding £5m to this seasons ffp calculation.

If let's say our ffp hole this season was £30m, and the plan is to sell player X in June for £40m, adding extra £5m in January (while buying player X's replacement) doesn't make significant difference to our situation.

6 minutes ago, cheltenham_villa said:

were at risk or we have some money and really want to create some more.

The reality is no one really knows.

No one here really knows, true.

We can only look at the facts available to us (published accounts and the losses they show, extended accounting period to the end of June, proposal for £135m allowed losses) and draw our own conclusions.

I think there is strong evidence to suggest we are at risk, others might disagree.

4 minutes ago, ender4 said:

I'm not sure this makes sense.  If we are close to the £105m limit, then we must be close to the UEFA PSR limits as well.  Next season we will hit the UEFA limit well before the PL limit so it makes no sense for us to push to increase the PL limit as we will be in Europe. 

What am i missing here?

Well, if you read the UEFA squad cost control rules, on 1st breach it only talks about financial penalties not sporting penalties (if I read that correctly). With Premier League breach you get hit with sporting penalty straight away.

So perhaps we are OK to the take financial penalty from uefa. That would be one explanation.

Just now, HanoiVillan said:

Yes, that's the optimistic view. But there are some pretty clear ways those things might not happen (maybe we don't get any bidding wars, maybe European clubs don't think they could match the wage demands of the players we'd be looking to sell, etc), so I think the claim 'we won't get a points deduction' is too strong. *Hopefully* we won't. 

Yes, "hopefully" , but I'm very optimistic. There are good reasons to be