11 minutes ago, Clown Lake said:

It will be included by the end of his contract with Everton. It is a pay me later after a certain time to remain ffp compliant, just accounting suave. If you pay attention to the add ons we put on players you’ll notice the trend.

Hint: £400k profit.

What actually are the add ons ? No guarantee that they will all be met ...

And also, how much in agent fees ?

9 minutes ago, Clown Lake said:

It will be included by the end of his contract with Everton. It is a pay me later after a certain time to remain ffp compliant, just accounting suave. If you pay attention to the add ons we put on players you’ll notice the trend.

Hint: £400k profit.

You have to know that PSR doesn’t work that way, what with the confidence that you told off everyone else - right?

5 minutes ago, SydneyChelsea said:

You have to know that PSR doesn’t work that way, what with the confidence that you told off everyone else - right?

Please go read 😂

Another £100m/£150m expected to be coming in.

We are all set to invest heavily if needed in the next 3/4 years. We have tons of room to breathe.

25 minutes ago, Clown Lake said:

Another £100m/£150m expected to be coming in.

We are all set to invest heavily if needed in the next 3/4 years. We have tons of room to breathe.

So, i have another take on this, that i would like someone clever like @terraloon to comment on.

I would imagine that we need to temper our selling somewhat as we will need to maintain a regular pipeline of income.

With purchases being amortised, initially over 7 year and more recently over 5 years , we have built a tail into our accounting now, with a year on year deficit that needs to be financed. With sales being booked into the financial year in total but used in PSR/FFP calculations over a three year benefit period, the earning pattern on the income is much shorter than that of the debt,

Don't get me wrong, I know that there will be year on year churning taking place with inflow and outflow of players but in its simplest form, if we sell a bunch of players and raised £350m this year, we will be in the black against our rolling amortised debt of £150m per year, say, for years 1,2 and 3. Come year 4, that £350m is off the books and if we have not generated similar levels of income we will need to find sales to meet this amortised burden.

With no more apparent fixed assets to cash in on, either we continue this program of trying to get cheap and flip players to finance the debt and reduce the yearly amortised balance over time, or we have to start selling pure profits or some of our headline players. If we are able to keep a few of the players in the tank, so to speak, then we can look to move them on in later financial periods.

Edited August 5, 2025Aug 5 by WhiteWall

13 minutes ago, WhiteWall said:

So, i have another take on this, that i would like someone clever like @terraloon to comment on.

I would imagine that we need to temper our selling somewhat as we will need to maintain a regular pipeline of income.

With purchases being amortised, initially over 7 year and more recently over 5 years , we have built a tail into our accounting now, with a year on year deficit that needs to be financed. With sales being booked into the financial year in total but used in PSR/FFP calculations over a three year benefit period, the earning pattern on the income is much shorter than that of the debt,

Don't get me wrong, I know that there will be year on year churning taking place with inflow and outflow of players but in its simplest form, if we sell a bunch of players and raised £350m this year, we will be in the black against our rolling amortised debt of £150m per year, say, for years 1,2 and 3. Come year 4, that £350m is off the books and if we have not generated similar levels of income we will need to find sales to meet this amortised burden.

With no more apparent fixed assets to cash in on, either we continue this program of trying to get cheap and flip players to finance the debt and reduce the yearly amortised balance over time, or we have to start selling pure profits or some of our headline players. If we are able to keep a few of the players in the tank, so to speak, then we can look to move them on in later financial periods.

With 1 or 2 exceptions, I think we will find that every player at the club is for sale !

I could even see them selling Palmer or Caicedo if someone offered a large enough fee ...

1 hour ago, Sexyfootball said:

What actually are the add ons ? No guarantee that they will all be met ...

And also, how much in agent fees ?

Also interested in this, what are the add ons @Clown Lake ?

A bit weird bickering about an amazing deal. Everyone thought (including me) this buy and ramifications will be sh*te. Turned out it wasn't. Be it +1 or -1 who cares.

KDH is a top professional but clearly not the level we aspire to. This was clear to me before we even bought him. Hopefully he brought in professionalism and backbone to the squad.

3 minutes ago, evissy said:

A bit weird bickering about an amazing deal. Everyone thought (including me) this buy and ramifications will be sh*te. Turned out it wasn't. Be it +1 or -1 who cares.

KDH is a top professional but clearly not the level we aspire to. This was clear to me before we even bought him. Hopefully he brought in professionalism and backbone to the squad.

amazing deal?

9 minutes ago, Ukraine Bolt said:

amazing deal?

Buy a player that is clearly not for us for around 30m. Sell him after a year for almost the same recouping most of what was invested in him. So yes.

8 minutes ago, evissy said:

Buy a player that is clearly not for us for around 30m. Sell him after a year for almost the same recouping most of what was invested in him. So yes.

That's not an amazing deal, that's getting off lightly with a very obvious and avoidable mistake.

Madueke was an amazing deal flipping him for almost double what we bought him for. This, by no meaning of the word, can be described as amazing.

23 minutes ago, evissy said:

Buy a player that is clearly not for us for around 30m. Sell him after a year for almost the same recouping most of what was invested in him. So yes.

If it was so obvious that it wasn't the standard we were looking for, why did they buy him for £30m? We sold him a year later for a marginal loss/profit (don't know), why did they buy him to begin with? The same goes for Felix and the Garnacho interest (if true what the media reports) looks the same. What are they thinking about with these purchases?

Odd that we are arguing over £460k profit on KDH. Look at our portfolio and see how we are successful already. If you want to bicker over £460k you really have no grounds to complain about our model. Also remove the bicker glasses and look at our opposition fans everywhere extremely jealous over what we are doing. Their noise and cries is proof that we are doing something correct.

Performance via minutes played is where majority of the add ons get triggered. In 5 years we will hit them.

We had KDH as good squad depth and helped settle in players to Marescas system for free at the end of day. It was a great deal seeing as we landed all of our goals. Moan all you like, it has been a good one year support deal.

1 hour ago, WhiteWall said:

So, i have another take on this, that i would like someone clever like @terraloon to comment on.

I would imagine that we need to temper our selling somewhat as we will need to maintain a regular pipeline of income.

With purchases being amortised, initially over 7 year and more recently over 5 years , we have built a tail into our accounting now, with a year on year deficit that needs to be financed. With sales being booked into the financial year in total but used in PSR/FFP calculations over a three year benefit period, the earning pattern on the income is much shorter than that of the debt,

Don't get me wrong, I know that there will be year on year churning taking place with inflow and outflow of players but in its simplest form, if we sell a bunch of players and raised £350m this year, we will be in the black against our rolling amortised debt of £150m per year, say, for years 1,2 and 3. Come year 4, that £350m is off the books and if we have not generated similar levels of income we will need to find sales to meet this amortised burden.

With no more apparent fixed assets to cash in on, either we continue this program of trying to get cheap and flip players to finance the debt and reduce the yearly amortised balance over time, or we have to start selling pure profits or some of our headline players. If we are able to keep a few of the players in the tank, so to speak, then we can look to move them on in later financial periods.

I actually think that the consequences and benefits of granting 6/7/8 year contracts haven’t been fully grasped.

Of course players that we could use the extended amortisation was a benefit but what we are seeing is that many players like Lukaku, like Kepa, like Jorginho are now gone. Those three at its peak we’re accountable for circa £40 million of amortisation. What all had in common is that , save Kepa I believe they were on 5 year deals and none were on low wages so their costs were adding another £40m a year to the squad costs.

It’s hard to believe but many of those for whom we could amortise their fees north of 5 years are now coming into the third year of their deals. We saw with Madeuke that the term left on his contract was less than the 5 years most clubs will offer at least 5 years so him getting a better higher value contract wasn’t a barrier to his agreement to the move.

To a degree you are right they are pushing the can down the road but in the not too distant future Caicedo and Palmer who were signed on 8 year deals with an option will have in effect 4 or more years left on their contracts with no fee to amortise. The residue of his fee will be written down £20 ish million a season will end three years on from now. Not at the same level but Palmers will likewise not impact .

Of course there is the risk that some players don’t work out but as I say the trick has always been to mitigate any loss .

There will be quite a comprehensive spread sheet aiding the club’s decisions where for instance the club will probably be trying to balance out amortisation in respect of incomings against amortisation for outgoings. My guess is that currently for season 25/26 there needs to be around £20 million more of amortisation savings and the two players mentioned yesterday who we paid fees for probably account for half that sum.

Two final things.

First that spreadsheet will be looking at squad costs. So there will be a focus of fees paid to intermediaries which mostly show up in the charge to amortised fees.

Second the real key to all this is growth in all income streams . We will be tied to 70% of income allowed to be spent on player costs so that will be more the focus

We Already know that the CWC will benefit both the 24/25&25/26 numbers and there will be CL monies in 25/26 and of course there will be additional performance monies from the 24/5 finish but be prepared to see wage costs grow in both years due to bonuses.

50 minutes ago, WhiteWall said:

So, i have another take on this, that i would like someone clever like @terraloon to comment on.

I would imagine that we need to temper our selling somewhat as we will need to maintain a regular pipeline of income.

With purchases being amortised, initially over 7 year and more recently over 5 years , we have built a tail into our accounting now, with a year on year deficit that needs to be financed. With sales being booked into the financial year in total but used in PSR/FFP calculations over a three year benefit period, the earning pattern on the income is much shorter than that of the debt,

Don't get me wrong, I know that there will be year on year churning taking place with inflow and outflow of players but in its simplest form, if we sell a bunch of players and raised £350m this year, we will be in the black against our rolling amortised debt of £150m per year, say, for years 1,2 and 3. Come year 4, that £350m is off the books and if we have not generated similar levels of income we will need to find sales to meet this amortised burden.

With no more apparent fixed assets to cash in on, either we continue this program of trying to get cheap and flip players to finance the debt and reduce the yearly amortised balance over time, or we have to start selling pure profits or some of our headline players. If we are able to keep a few of the players in the tank, so to speak, then we can look to move them on in later financial periods.

I'm not clever like @terraloon, but here are some thoughts anyway

The current player trading model is an evolution of our previous 'loan army' model. The strategy is the same, to procure an army of young players to increase in value and either serve the team or be sold at a profit. There is a reason we have the highest transfer income received of all clubs in the EPL over the last decade, by a distance too. It is a deliberate strategy to defeat FFP/PSR.

The key differences are a) we can no longer rely on harvesting loan fees to increase profit, thanks to loan limit restrictions, and b) we are happy to overpay for young players in the assumption we can sell them for more than their book value later.

The longer we keep a player the more potentially profitable they become. With amortisation limited to 5 years, every player is 'pure profit' after the amortisation period expires since we either owe nothing on the transfer fee, or we've renegotiated the contract to spread the debt out even smaller.

The perfect example of this of course was Eden Hazard, whose 130m fee was basically pure profit since his transfer cost was long paid off. One could see a similar scenario if a club came in with a mega offer for a 27/28 year old Caicedo or Palmer in the last years of their contracts - we would bank the entire fee and use it for years to come.

By offering 8 year contracts to 20 year olds the theory is we get them on a cheap wage but still protect against free agency right as they are their peak. The fee is off the books or insignificant meaning that any future transfer is more profitable.

The flaw in this plan, albeit unforeseen, will be the impending changes to the transfer system. The reality is that players could be moving for peanuts in the future and we will never really be able to recoup fees. On the other than, maybe that will be the driver to get rid of the nonsense FFP policies.

1 hour ago, SydneyChelsea said:

I'm not clever like @terraloon, but here are some thoughts anyway

The current player trading model is an evolution of our previous 'loan army' model. The strategy is the same, to procure an army of young players to increase in value and either serve the team or be sold at a profit. There is a reason we have the highest transfer income received of all clubs in the EPL over the last decade, by a distance too. It is a deliberate strategy to defeat FFP/PSR.

The key differences are a) we can no longer rely on harvesting loan fees to increase profit, thanks to loan limit restrictions, and b) we are happy to overpay for young players in the assumption we can sell them for more than their book value later.

The longer we keep a player the more potentially profitable they become. With amortisation limited to 5 years, every player is 'pure profit' after the amortisation period expires since we either owe nothing on the transfer fee, or we've renegotiated the contract to spread the debt out even smaller.

The perfect example of this of course was Eden Hazard, whose 130m fee was basically pure profit since his transfer cost was long paid off. One could see a similar scenario if a club came in with a mega offer for a 27/28 year old Caicedo or Palmer in the last years of their contracts - we would bank the entire fee and use it for years to come.

By offering 8 year contracts to 20 year olds the theory is we get them on a cheap wage but still protect against free agency right as they are their peak. The fee is off the books or insignificant meaning that any future transfer is more profitable.

The flaw in this plan, albeit unforeseen, will be the impending changes to the transfer system. The reality is that players could be moving for peanuts in the future and we will never really be able to recoup fees. On the other than, maybe that will be the driver to get rid of the nonsense FFP policies.

I think the point I was also trying to get clarification on which both you and @terraloon have responded to is that as the accounting principle for sales is shorter than purchases it seems to me that we may want to be a little creative with some of our sales now. If the aggregated amortised debt is 150m each year (keeping it static for simplicity) and we sell players this summer for 300m, we will have an FFP/PSR profit for the 26, 27, and 28 accounting years but then the 300m is out of the books. However if we have collected 200m in this period and we sell players for an aggregated 100m on the basis, say, of a loan this year with an obligation to buy next summer, then would we surpass our liability for 26, 27, and 28 as well as significantly reducing that commitment in the 29 accounts.

Of course the considerable incoming and outgoings, those traded within the amortisation period those sold after as well as the homegrown free hitters make it all far more complicated than the example above but I think you are both confirming the point in general terms. Thanks.

Sounds like we’ll be starting season without a sponsor.

surely sponsors want their logo all over the fans shirts, can’t help the negotiating position can it once season starts and fans have already bought shirts

1 hour ago, WhiteWall said:

I think the point I was also trying to get clarification on which both you and @terraloon have responded to is that as the accounting principle for sales is shorter than purchases it seems to me that we may want to be a little creative with some of our sales now. If the aggregated amortised debt is 150m each year (keeping it static for simplicity) and we sell players this summer for 300m, we will have an FFP/PSR profit for the 26, 27, and 28 accounting years but then the 300m is out of the books. However if we have collected 200m in this period and we sell players for an aggregated 100m on the basis, say, of a loan this year with an obligation to buy next summer, then would we surpass our liability for 26, 27, and 28 as well as significantly reducing that commitment in the 29 accounts.

Of course the considerable incoming and outgoings, those traded within the amortisation period those sold after as well as the homegrown free hitters make it all far more complicated than the example above but I think you are both confirming the point in general terms. Thanks.

That's correct and that why things like loan w/obligation to buy are more popular now. The three-year accounting period means you need to continually have some churn in order to finance activity and you can't just hoard a sum of cash, it needs to be reinvested. Definitely one of the practical limitations of FFP policies, and IMO, one of the reasons they have not made any difference to financial sustainability.

One minor point is that amortisation doesn't mean consistent, even repayments - we are not splitting player costs into even instalments. Instead it means that the paper cost of a player is reduced by a fixed sum each year.

The net effect is what @terraloon described - players get "cheaper" the longer they stick around, and any future transfer can be more profitable on the book value.

35 minutes ago, Adamrb said:

Sounds like we’ll be starting season without a sponsor.

surely sponsors want their logo all over the fans shirts, can’t help the negotiating position can it once season starts and fans have already bought shirts

We will have to wait and see as from a marketing point there will be a balance between seeing the sponsors name on replica shirts and gaining maximum exposure , if there is indeed a sponsor lined up, once the players are available to have their phots heralding the launch and that for me would be Friday of this week or some point the following.

4 hours ago, SydneyChelsea said:

I'm not clever like @terraloon, but here are some thoughts anyway

The current player trading model is an evolution of our previous 'loan army' model. The strategy is the same, to procure an army of young players to increase in value and either serve the team or be sold at a profit. There is a reason we have the highest transfer income received of all clubs in the EPL over the last decade, by a distance too. It is a deliberate strategy to defeat FFP/PSR.

The key differences are a) we can no longer rely on harvesting loan fees to increase profit, thanks to loan limit restrictions, and b) we are happy to overpay for young players in the assumption we can sell them for more than their book value later.

The longer we keep a player the more potentially profitable they become. With amortisation limited to 5 years, every player is 'pure profit' after the amortisation period expires since we either owe nothing on the transfer fee, or we've renegotiated the contract to spread the debt out even smaller.

The perfect example of this of course was Eden Hazard, whose 130m fee was basically pure profit since his transfer cost was long paid off. One could see a similar scenario if a club came in with a mega offer for a 27/28 year old Caicedo or Palmer in the last years of their contracts - we would bank the entire fee and use it for years to come.

By offering 8 year contracts to 20 year olds the theory is we get them on a cheap wage but still protect against free agency right as they are their peak. The fee is off the books or insignificant meaning that any future transfer is more profitable.

The flaw in this plan, albeit unforeseen, will be the impending changes to the transfer system. The reality is that players could be moving for peanuts in the future and we will never really be able to recoup fees. On the other than, maybe that will be the driver to get rid of the nonsense FFP policies.

Not clever ? You run rings around us all !

One point I would make is that there is comment in the accounts that loan fees are at this point in time driving up income.

Not sure what the policy was under RA but certainly players that the current owners have signed for a fee seem to attract loan fees and whilst some are published like Disassi to Villa which seemed akin to 6 months amortisation and a % of his wages the majority of arrangements aren’t leaked

One mistake some make is assuming that because sites like Transfermarket don’t show a fee then one’s not paid. I am pretty sure that save the odd players we will charge a fee and whilst I believe we have, as a club, a policy not to put such financial arrangements into the public domain other clubs seem to almost want to “ show off” the fact that a fee is paid.

About FOS. This is a bit of a personal view and only feel based but as I watch NHL and after 30 years or so watching they brought one small sponsor to the shirt which is to me sort of a point of enragement. The shirts been sort of holy piece of item that no sponsor is part of. They monetize the sport to last item but they never had sponsors on the shirts which made them look so cool. Just cartoon type iconic shirts that was about the team. The shirts in all and every sport look at their best without a sponsor. That is a fact you can't argue. If you do you are off my good books 😅.

In football it has always been a tradition naturally but yet it looks 1000x more cool without some stupid "3" on that shirt.

I know we need one and we'll get one but I wished we could muster 60m/season with something else. And all the other clubs as well. One tradition I would love to put in the bed with own goal rule 😅.

So are we signing a goalkeeper or what? That should've been the priority signing. A good cup final doesn't negate the facts, Sanchez is a liability.

On 05/08/2025 at 09:53, evissy said:

Buy a player that is clearly not for us for around 30m. Sell him after a year for almost the same recouping most of what was invested in him. So yes.

Buying a player who is " clearly not for us " in the first place isn't good business.

Paying his wages for a year isn't good business.

Selling him for less than we paid isn't good business.

4 hours ago, evissy said:

In football it has always been a tradition naturally but yet it looks 1000x more cool without some stupid "3" on that shirt.

I know we need one and we'll get one but I wished we could muster 60m/season with something else. And all the other clubs as well. One tradition I would love to put in the bed with own goal rule 😅.

Come on then, I'll bite. You would like to put to bed the tradition of the "own goal rule" ?

What on earth are you talking about ?

Edited August 6, 2025Aug 6 by The Rising Sun
Info

For god's sake you had to ask him?