Something is wrong with the system when clubs have to sell off their academy products to comply with PSR.

There has to be a better way than this. If anything, the Premier League should be encouraging the development and harnessing of academy products rather than seeing it as a means for clubs to make a quick profit.

It enhances the league and the fans feel a sense of closeness when they see local talent coming through the ranks compared to your standard signings from foreign countries.

There's a reason why United fans still revere the class of 92. We love John Terry being our captain, leader and legend.

3 hours ago, Jezz said:

Something is wrong with the system when clubs have to sell off their academy products to comply with PSR.

There has to be a better way than this. If anything, the Premier League should be encouraging the development and harnessing of academy products rather than seeing it as a means for clubs to make a quick profit.

It enhances the league and the fans feel a sense of closeness when they see local talent coming through the ranks compared to your standard signings from foreign countries.

There's a reason why United fans still revere the class of 92. We love John Terry being our captain, leader and legend.

I said this when FFP came in and loads of people claimed it would see teams full of academy graduates it will end up as clubs using academy kids as money makers. It was never about saving clubs from themselves, or helping young players, it was always about the big clubs keeping the cash to themselves, keeping themselves on top and stopping anyone else climbing to their heights.

Its just an extension of that G14 bollocks.

3 hours ago, Jezz said:

Something is wrong with the system when clubs have to sell off their academy products to comply with PSR.

There has to be a better way than this. If anything, the Premier League should be encouraging the development and harnessing of academy products rather than seeing it as a means for clubs to make a quick profit.

It enhances the league and the fans feel a sense of closeness when they see local talent coming through the ranks compared to your standard signings from foreign countries.

There's a reason why United fans still revere the class of 92. We love John Terry being our captain, leader and legend.

We can always sell a property to ourselves. 

5 minutes ago, evissy said:

We can always sell a property to ourselves. 

Probably Stoll Mansions LOL

17 hours ago, just said:

Will be gutted if Conor is sold. But at least we'll still have Sterling.

Lavia, A.Santos, Casadei.

31 minutes ago, Gol15 said:

Lavia, A.Santos, Casadei.

Lavia, Santos, Casadei, Carney, Ugochukwu

If we manage to sell Sterling, Lukaku, Broja, Maatsen or Chilwell, Sarr and plus. Shouldn't we be able to comply with psr? Don't know...

Selling Gallagher seems stupid.

3 hours ago, WhiteWall said:

Lavia, Santos, Casadei, Carney, Ugochukwu

Nail on head.

Add Enzo and Caicedo to the 5 you've listed, and BlueCo have signed 7 midfielders ; in the eyes of the DoFs they are probably all ahead of poor old Conor Gallagher 🙂 

23 minutes ago, evissy said:

If we manage to sell Sterling, Lukaku, Broja, Maatsen or Chilwell, Sarr and plus. Shouldn't we be able to comply with psr? Don't know...

Selling Gallagher seems stupid.

Lukaku we will either take a PSR loss on or maybe break even if his gentleman's agreed buyout is met.

Sterlings remaining PSR book value is just over 30mill, not a hard fee to get but much harder to find a club willing to offer him a wage he would take. No one in sane mind would pay him 325k a week. Even if we did, 30mill would be a break even not a profit.

Sarr came in for free and will leave for free.

Broja is pure profit so whatever we get for him goes to PSR.

Same for Maatsen.

Chilwells book value is just under 10mill. If we sold him I imagine we can make 25mill book value profit.

Really the 10mill for Broja, 25mill for Maatsen and 25mill profit on chilwell should do.

Isn't Chilwell on 200kpw?

Maybe United could be interested. 

11 minutes ago, axman2526 said:

Lukaku we will either take a PSR loss on or maybe break even if his gentleman's agreed buyout is met.

Sterlings remaining PSR book value is just over 30mill, not a hard fee to get but much harder to find a club willing to offer him a wage he would take. No one in sane mind would pay him 325k a week. Even if we did, 30mill would be a break even not a profit.

Sarr came in for free and will leave for free.

Broja is pure profit so whatever we get for him goes to PSR.

Same for Maatsen.

Chilwells book value is just under 10mill. If we sold him I imagine we can make 25mill book value profit.

Really the 10mill for Broja, 25mill for Maatsen and 25mill profit on chilwell should do.

Hi Axe . I sort of understand that an Academy player is pure profit if sold.

But surely if we sell any player, even if it's less than we paid for him, the fee is all pure income .?

I mean £50million for Conor is the same income as £50million for say, Mudryk?

It's still £50million added to income regardless?  

Any info would be appreciated mate, thanks.

 

1 hour ago, The Rising Sun said:

Hi Axe . I sort of understand that an Academy player is pure profit if sold.

But surely if we sell any player, even if it's less than we paid for him, the fee is all pure income .?

I mean £50million for Conor is the same income as £50million for say, Mudryk?

It's still £50million added to income regardless?  

Any info would be appreciated mate, thanks.

 

So in terms of actual money coming in yes it is money on the book. Depending on payment terms in your example there if we sold Mudryk for 50mill we could back 50mill right away, on 25mill this summer and 25 mill next year, or 12.5mill for the next 4 summers etc.

 

What PSR and FFP are concerned with is not the literal money in and out, but the value of an asset and how it is spread across a contract.

 

It is why we rushed to get Enzo signed. That 9 year deal spread his 105mill cost over 9 years equally, rather than 105mill on that one years books. Does not matter if we gave Benfica 105mill in one payment or 10,  his book value is spread across his contract, though now both uefa and the FA have limited the spread cost to a maximum of 5 years.

 

So before we could have spread Lukaku over a 10 year contract and his PSR hit would have been 10mill a year. As he had a 5 year deal it is 20mill a year basically.

 

So back to the players are hand. Conor, Maatsen, Trev, Broja or any academy player has a book value of 0 as they cost no transfer fee to bring in. So that helps our PSR or FFP status 100%

 

Whereas Sterling was signed for just under 50mill on a 5 year deal. He has used up 2 years so his remaining book value is just over 30mill, far as the football bodies are concerned.

 

So if we sell him for 15mill that is 15mill in the club's coffers BUT the power that be would then call his book value in total in now. So instead of a PSR or FFP hit of 10mill for this season it would become owed book value (i believe 30.4mill) minus 15mill, meaning his PSR/FFP hit is 15.4.ill instead of 10mill. Putting the club in a worse position that actually keeping him, financially speaking.

 

Now if instead we sold Stelring for 42mill it would be 42mill in the coffers now BUT 42mill minus 30.4mill so a PSR/FFP profit of 11.6mill, helping the club's overall position with the powers that be.

 

Which is why FFP and PSR sadly encourage club's to sell youth players to avoid bans, fines and points deductions.

 

50mill for Gallagher is 50mill in the coffers AND 50mill to PSR/FFP.

 

30.4mill for Sterling is 30.4mill in the coffers BUT a break even for PSR. and FFP

 

Hope thar helps.

3 hours ago, axman2526 said:

So in terms of actual money coming in yes it is money on the book. Depending on payment terms in your example there if we sold Mudryk for 50mill we could back 50mill right away, on 25mill this summer and 25 mill next year, or 12.5mill for the next 4 summers etc.

 

What PSR and FFP are concerned with is not the literal money in and out, but the value of an asset and how it is spread across a contract.

 

It is why we rushed to get Enzo signed. That 9 year deal spread his 105mill cost over 9 years equally, rather than 105mill on that one years books. Does not matter if we gave Benfica 105mill in one payment or 10,  his book value is spread across his contract, though now both uefa and the FA have limited the spread cost to a maximum of 5 years.

 

So before we could have spread Lukaku over a 10 year contract and his PSR hit would have been 10mill a year. As he had a 5 year deal it is 20mill a year basically.

 

So back to the players are hand. Conor, Maatsen, Trev, Broja or any academy player has a book value of 0 as they cost no transfer fee to bring in. So that helps our PSR or FFP status 100%

 

Whereas Sterling was signed for just under 50mill on a 5 year deal. He has used up 2 years so his remaining book value is just over 30mill, far as the football bodies are concerned.

 

So if we sell him for 15mill that is 15mill in the club's coffers BUT the power that be would then call his book value in total in now. So instead of a PSR or FFP hit of 10mill for this season it would become owed book value (i believe 30.4mill) minus 15mill, meaning his PSR/FFP hit is 15.4.ill instead of 10mill. Putting the club in a worse position that actually keeping him, financially speaking.

 

Now if instead we sold Stelring for 42mill it would be 42mill in the coffers now BUT 42mill minus 30.4mill so a PSR/FFP profit of 11.6mill, helping the club's overall position with the powers that be.

 

Which is why FFP and PSR sadly encourage club's to sell youth players to avoid bans, fines and points deductions.

 

50mill for Gallagher is 50mill in the coffers AND 50mill to PSR/FFP.

 

30.4mill for Sterling is 30.4mill in the coffers BUT a break even for PSR. and FFP

 

Hope thar helps.

Yeah thanks Axe.

I can see it now. It's a crazy situation when you can sell a player for a fee yet it can mean that in fact it decreases your profit situation?

We'll never be able to sell someone like Mudryk. !

Cheers for your reply mate, take care 

I think selling Gallagher is inevitable now with Poch gone and the managerial change. I don't think Gallagher will bode that well in the new system. 

1 hour ago, Victor90 said:

 I don't think Gallagher will bode that well in the new system. 

Sadly, that's true Victor. 37 consecutive sideways passes, none of which go further than 10 yards before returning to the exact same spot, is not Gallagher's forte. He also goes rampaging over the halfway line far too often.

In all probability, Gallagher's all-action, ground covering, skill-set is seen as anathema to the implementation of  Sarriball/Marescaball.

That will be a shame.

I don’t think Conor fits into the possession football team Enzo Maresca would want to play. I can see a midfield three of Lavia, Enzo and Caicedo. 

Unless Conor transform his technical abilities over the summer he’s surplus to requirements unfortunately.

 

2 hours ago, El regreso said:

I don’t think Conor fits into the possession football team Enzo Maresca would want to play. I can see a midfield three of Lavia, Enzo and Caicedo. 

Unless Conor transform his technical abilities over the summer he’s surplus to requirements unfortunately.

 

Agree entirely with this. 
It’s almost as if they’ve went out of their way to find a manager that maybe doesn’t rate him in order to justify his sale.😀

The midfield 3 of Lavia, Caicedo and Enzo is the midfield I’ve wanted to see play together since we signed them and they seem to fit the new manager’s system. 
 

Gallagher is 100% gone I reckon and I’m not looking forward to him sticking one in the top corner when he plays against us next season.

8 hours ago, just said:

Sadly, that's true Victor. 37 consecutive sideways passes, none of which go further than 10 yards before returning to the exact same spot, is not Gallagher's forte. He also goes rampaging over the halfway line far too often.

In all probability, Gallagher's all-action, ground covering, skill-set is seen as anathema to the implementation of  Sarriball/Marescaball.

That will be a shame.

I think you may well be right. I saw a sneak preview of the new home kit.

9 hours ago, just said:

Sadly, that's true Victor. 37 consecutive sideways passes, none of which go further than 10 yards before returning to the exact same spot, is not Gallagher's forte. He also goes rampaging over the halfway line far too often.

In all probability, Gallagher's all-action, ground covering, skill-set is seen as anathema to the implementation of  Sarriball/Marescaball.

That will be a shame.

We'll buy him back next summer for £100m once Maresca is sacked 👍

10 hours ago, just said:

Sadly, that's true Victor. 37 consecutive sideways passes, none of which go further than 10 yards before returning to the exact same spot, is not Gallagher's forte. He also goes rampaging over the halfway line far too often.

In all probability, Gallagher's all-action, ground covering, skill-set is seen as anathema to the implementation of  Sarriball/Marescaball.

That will be a shame.

Gallagher can play in this system no problem. TT who played tippy tappy ball kept playing Conor even after disaster and red card performance. 

When I analyzed some of our games last season, Conor stand out big tim, he is like a machine.

Edited June 1, 20242 yr by Bob stark

19 hours ago, axman2526 said:

So in terms of actual money coming in yes it is money on the book. Depending on payment terms in your example there if we sold Mudryk for 50mill we could back 50mill right away, on 25mill this summer and 25 mill next year, or 12.5mill for the next 4 summers etc.

 

What PSR and FFP are concerned with is not the literal money in and out, but the value of an asset and how it is spread across a contract.

 

It is why we rushed to get Enzo signed. That 9 year deal spread his 105mill cost over 9 years equally, rather than 105mill on that one years books. Does not matter if we gave Benfica 105mill in one payment or 10,  his book value is spread across his contract, though now both uefa and the FA have limited the spread cost to a maximum of 5 years.

 

So before we could have spread Lukaku over a 10 year contract and his PSR hit would have been 10mill a year. As he had a 5 year deal it is 20mill a year basically.

 

So back to the players are hand. Conor, Maatsen, Trev, Broja or any academy player has a book value of 0 as they cost no transfer fee to bring in. So that helps our PSR or FFP status 100%

 

Whereas Sterling was signed for just under 50mill on a 5 year deal. He has used up 2 years so his remaining book value is just over 30mill, far as the football bodies are concerned.

 

So if we sell him for 15mill that is 15mill in the club's coffers BUT the power that be would then call his book value in total in now. So instead of a PSR or FFP hit of 10mill for this season it would become owed book value (i believe 30.4mill) minus 15mill, meaning his PSR/FFP hit is 15.4.ill instead of 10mill. Putting the club in a worse position that actually keeping him, financially speaking.

 

Now if instead we sold Stelring for 42mill it would be 42mill in the coffers now BUT 42mill minus 30.4mill so a PSR/FFP profit of 11.6mill, helping the club's overall position with the powers that be.

 

Which is why FFP and PSR sadly encourage club's to sell youth players to avoid bans, fines and points deductions.

 

50mill for Gallagher is 50mill in the coffers AND 50mill to PSR/FFP.

 

30.4mill for Sterling is 30.4mill in the coffers BUT a break even for PSR. and FFP

 

Hope thar helps.

The other thing I read somewhere was that owners can make up some of the shortfall by issuing bonds (?)

Is that really a thing?

I don't know where we stand on PSR . Some reports say we need to sell before end of June, others that we're ok, another one said a change of the dates will be to our benefit?

Seems as if money worries have been with us since the 70s starting with the East Stand construction and through the years of property developers attempting to force us out , Save the Bridge, etc etc . Jesus, never a dull moment!

Have a good weekend, take care

 

Would love if we keep him as he looks a player and is a Chelsea through and through, but at the same time, from the FFP point of view, I can understand if he goes. We've made so many signings and at some point we simply had to sell players, too and the Academy graduates make the most profit. The likes of Enzo, Caicedo, Lavia can't be sold so quick as it would mean a complete disaster from a business point of view so it is all down to the Academy guys to help balance the books.

Another one I would be sad to see go is Trev Chalobah, but now with the signing of Adarabioyo it is looking more and more likely that he will soon be gone, too. 

1 hour ago, The Rising Sun said:

The other thing I read somewhere was that owners can make up some of the shortfall by issuing bonds (?)

Is that really a thing?

I don't know where we stand on PSR . Some reports say we need to sell before end of June, others that we're ok, another one said a change of the dates will be to our benefit?

Seems as if money worries have been with us since the 70s starting with the East Stand construction and through the years of property developers attempting to force us out , Save the Bridge, etc etc . Jesus, never a dull moment!

Have a good weekend, take care

 

Not sure on the bonds but PSR will allow us to sell the hotels and the training ground from Chelsea to BlueCo and have that count as income.

Uefas FFP does not allow that however.

Abused too often by Real Madrid and Barcelona.

Villa may be a destination for him. 

Would be a great move tbf.