They made two sales this window so it looks like they're making their best effort to stay within the rules. It also looks like Newcastle and Forest are working together so they both stay within the guidelines
Ok I probably didn’t explain myself properly. The transfers from the last two seasons will be big chunks of money going out for a few years. When Everton breached we didn’t actually spend any money that year and sold Richarlison, it was transfers from the past that took us over. I’m not hoping for it with Forrest but was curious to see if they would be covered. Seems they will be.
I understand but you'd hope a club is keeping an accurate tally. The deferred payments of sales, you would hope, are known and accounted for. The figures might come as a surprise to a fan like me but this isn't a spectator event.
When I say reportedly I mean the indication from hopefully connected sources. I don't mean some well meaning observer on reddit keeping their own spreadsheet. I suppose there is a chance the recent business is not enough and there were more sales intended but didn't happen. But the indications are that we are ok and that would take amortization into account.
ETA Everton did purchase players in 22/23. They may not of spent as much as on transfers as they sold but they did buy.
Wouldn’t surprise me if the Prem now ‘investigate’ us both. £35mil for Anderson and then £15mil for Vlachodimos are 2 overinflated deals. But makes sense when you think of it like Anderson being valued at £20mil and then Newcastle scratching Forest’s back and vice versa, meaning both end up with extra revenue to aid spending.
Genuinely devastated. He had so much potential and selling an actual born and raised fan just makes me sad.
It's those type of players that will bleed for you on the pitch, and truly represent the fans.
It's not ideal, but I think he's a player in the sweet spot of money we can get and what we lose by selling.
He's got good potential, but he's not made any major contributions since moving into the senior squad. Last season should/could have been his breakthrough, but spent most of it injured (like everyone else).
I actually think a move to a team where he'll get more playing time will be good for him - he's realistically a squad players at Newcastle right now, and you can see where he needs Prem match experience for his game to develop.
All these comments are very sad. PSR has sucked the soul out of football - I'm a Chelsea fan and after years of seeing us want our academy players in the lineup, Clearlake & Co are now desperate to offload them rather than integrate them due to PSR.
Games gone and I won't be told otherwise.
That’s the main part of all this psr stuff that doesn’t sit right with me, it’s now smarter to sell your academy players for “pure profit” and replace them with new players
rather than in the past when you had some financial troubles , you actually had to rely on your academy because you may not have the money to buy players
I don't know if anyone mentioned it, but his grandad played the same position as him, came through the academy, and was in the squad that won our last major trophy. He was injured around the same age as Elliot is now, bad tackle and his career was over.
So for me, yes I wanted his grandson to stay and hopefully be part of a next trophy. And he should have been.
Financially it's a good deal. Excellent even. Practically speaking, I believe he has family down there and hopefully he can make a real mark career-wise. But it shouldn't be the way of it.
It’s pretty crap but it’s the outcome of a system where everyone outside the top 6 has to sell any academy prospect as soon as they become regulars for “pure profit”. How the PL can look at that and think, yeah that’s fine, is shocking
Isn’t this all down to the likes of Newcastle, Everton and Forrest owners spunking absolute fortunes over short periods of time, in pursuit of short term success, and now having to pay the price?
There are several clubs who focused on longer term sustainable growth who seem to be doing ok (Brentford, Brighton, Palace, Spurs).
Realistically, with Tonali coming back and our lack of European football his game time would have been limited. He can go and get some good game time and experience and if he develops how everybody hopes I wouldn’t be surprised on him coming back one day £35m for him is insane.
Hope he does well at his new club
35 mil for Anderson is not over inflated for me. How much did we pay for Gordon? At the time it felt like too much, but sometimes you pay for potential!
I just want to watch talented people kick football. Being bombarded with information about the shady financial side of football is exhausting. I was happier not knowing what went on behind the scenes back in the day.
Apparently Villa are going to get in trouble for signing Dobbin for £10m - which isn’t massively over-inflated (£10m signings in 2024 are like £2.5m signings in 2014, no one should really care), so Newcastle getting £35m for Elliot Anderson will surely also get both Newcastle and Forest looked at.
PSR exists purely to protect the 6 so why are we surprised.
How could we get into trouble for it? Who’s the arbiter for “fair value” transfers?
The Big Six may want one in order to lowball the other clubs but it’ll never happen
To answer the top question, I was reading something the other day that suggested the PL itself investigates and the clubs themselves explain why x and y are worth what they are, presumably using market examples as evidence. If they’re not satisfied it mentioned the “overvaluation” having to be returned. Whether they currently have the power to enforce it themselves I’m not sure.
Assuming they did, as it stands, I’m not sure there would be much punishment other than the selling club losing out on revenue. But, as with everything regarding this topic, any “allowances” then set the new precedent and creates new opportunities for collusion. All very messy.
I can’t see any way for that to be abused 🙄
The selling club sells for whatever price they deem appropriate. Always have, always will. Nobody cared about Grealish or Rice costing more than they’re “worth”…but suddenly now Villa have strengthened and come closer to the PSR limit, everyone’s got something to say
Nobody said anything because everyone knows Man City are dodgy anyway. If arsenal had paid West Ham 100m then West Ham paid arsenal 100m for a couple of academy players no one had heard of it probably would have been raised.
You don’t think it’s strange how a lot of these deals involve clubs directly to business with each other happen to be the clubs that need to make their account look better.
No one cared in those particular situations because there wasn’t an underlying possibility that the two clubs involved were potentially colluding to avoid sanctions.
I will explicitly point out that I don’t actually have an issue with the transaction being discussed, the values seem alright. But, whilst many commenters may just be using this as a stick to beat Villa with, I do think there’s an obvious conversation to be had about the rise of potential widespread collusion. Now that doesn’t even have to be just bottom-half clubs, it doesn’t even have to be at risk of breach clubs either. It’s about the issue of two or more parties, in the same competition, actively working together to mutually benefit. In theory, two “Big 6” clubs could actively start trading expensive academy products simply for immediate financial gain. Hoarding of talent could become even bigger for the simple matter of providing immediate cash injections in order to either increase spending power, or to cover potential breaches. There are a whole myriad of issues that could arise from FFP simply because teams, big & small, will do whatever it takes to try and legally circumvent them.
So either valuations need to be scrutinised or they don’t. They don’t just need scrutiny when sanctions are close.
Make the rules less heavily favourable to the established elite and people will take them more seriously
(Also worth pointing out that Villa have broken no rules)
Zero chance of us getting any problems over Dobbin.
Firstly they don't have a leg to stand on challenging clubs on valuations. Otherwise they'd have to look at everything from MaGuire to Brewster.
Secondly there are already a ton of former sales setting precedents. Like Chuk, Ramsey or Villa signing Rogers.
Yep. As long as there are examples of players of similar skill and experience who have gone for same price or more then epl can whistle dixie. Ironic that the big 6's man city have played a huge part in setting those precedents
Whilst it maybe a small-scale issue now, would the other14 not be worse off if the likes of Man City manipulate this particular strategy using even bigger assets?
Just as an example, City and Chelsea have both been on the FFP watchlist in recent years. To overcome this issue they could’ve colluded and switched Palmer and Gallagher for £50m each way. Suddenly they’ve earned 5x what Villa have and you’re back to square one in terms of financial gap.
All the numbers in your comment added up to 69. Congrats!
14
+ 50
+ 5
= 69
^([Click here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=LuckyNumber-Bot&subject=Stalk%20Me%20Pls&message=%2Fstalkme) to have me scan all your future comments.) \
^(Summon me on specific comments with u/LuckyNumber-Bot.)
Do you mean by buying players for under market value from clubs struggling to meet psr targets or by overinflating the value of their own players when they sell them?
Other 14 teams are equally, if not more, guilty of overinflating the values of their sales because they know others will just pay it. Is taking advantage of scenarios those teams put themselves in, anything new? Mid-table clubs love poaching players under market value from relegated sides, for example. Why’s that any different?
I'd say midtable clubs taking advantage of relegated clubs is based on footballing merit and the financial reality of relegated clubs having less income whereas the situation we've got now and also the hypothetical one you raise with city and Chelsea is entirely caused by a set of accountancy rules which is part of psr. Whether or not it's fair is irrelevant. My point is that the epl are going to have a hard time proving anything dodgy is going on when clubs can just point to previous deals where similar or worse players have been sold for same price or more. That will carry plenty of weight in any kind of hearing or legal setting
You seem under the impression the clubs want to do this.
They are forced to.
Buying players of relegated clubs or players that want to leave in general are normal market dynamics. PSR does not lead to normal market dynamics.
They don't have a leg to stand on for those kind of deals. As far as I'm aware, they can only investigate things tied to same party ownership.
Until 14 clubs vote to say otherwise, this is perfectly acceptable, and I don't even see anything wrong with it tbh.
Been saying it for a while. All that matters now is your accountants and lawyers. What happens on the pitch is just a sideshow now. PL is devolving into a bad product.
I'm not convinced by Trafford at all and it could be argued that he was one of the main reasons Burnley went down. He might do better behind a more stable defence though.
Yeah he's nowhere near ready to be #1 yet, he'll be an understudy to Pope with the view of becoming #1 in a few years time.
Tbf he's an extremely highly rated England U21 and you very rarely see keepers in top leagues at that age as they're often late bloomers. I think he has a high ceiling, so time will tell whether he reaches it or not...
Hopefully after todays deadline, everyone has their shit sorted out and it won't get mentioned or have big effects on the season
Agents must love PSR. Inflated transfer fees for the players they probably have better commission rates on
Hope so
[удалено]
Newcastle will give them some of the £35m Anderson fee back for Vlachodimos and it'll tidy things up for everyone
They made two sales this window so it looks like they're making their best effort to stay within the rules. It also looks like Newcastle and Forest are working together so they both stay within the guidelines
Hopefully you are ok. I’m hoping Everton are ok as well. I would feel more relaxed with another sale just in case.
We met our psr obligations last night with the sale of niakhate to Lyon. Sad to see him go but it was for a good fee.
fOrReSt
Be nice or I will call them Notts. I know they all like that.
Miss the upcoming deadline? Reportedly selling Niakhate and Mangala makes us safe.
Ok I probably didn’t explain myself properly. The transfers from the last two seasons will be big chunks of money going out for a few years. When Everton breached we didn’t actually spend any money that year and sold Richarlison, it was transfers from the past that took us over. I’m not hoping for it with Forrest but was curious to see if they would be covered. Seems they will be.
I understand but you'd hope a club is keeping an accurate tally. The deferred payments of sales, you would hope, are known and accounted for. The figures might come as a surprise to a fan like me but this isn't a spectator event. When I say reportedly I mean the indication from hopefully connected sources. I don't mean some well meaning observer on reddit keeping their own spreadsheet. I suppose there is a chance the recent business is not enough and there were more sales intended but didn't happen. But the indications are that we are ok and that would take amortization into account. ETA Everton did purchase players in 22/23. They may not of spent as much as on transfers as they sold but they did buy.
Wouldn’t surprise me if the Prem now ‘investigate’ us both. £35mil for Anderson and then £15mil for Vlachodimos are 2 overinflated deals. But makes sense when you think of it like Anderson being valued at £20mil and then Newcastle scratching Forest’s back and vice versa, meaning both end up with extra revenue to aid spending.
How are Newcastle fans feeling over selling Anderson ? A promising academy player
It’s shite but better than having to sell Isak, Gordon or Bruno.
Fair enough
Seems like clubs are selling the lowest earners. Probably why Almiron isn't leaving.
The club have looked to do deals to move him on but he’s never agreed to it so far.
New club may be lowering his wages but idk how it works.
Yeah he’s 21 with over 50 appearances for us, definitely still has a lot of potential! Always sad to see a local lad leave.
Genuinely devastated. He had so much potential and selling an actual born and raised fan just makes me sad. It's those type of players that will bleed for you on the pitch, and truly represent the fans.
It's not ideal, but I think he's a player in the sweet spot of money we can get and what we lose by selling. He's got good potential, but he's not made any major contributions since moving into the senior squad. Last season should/could have been his breakthrough, but spent most of it injured (like everyone else). I actually think a move to a team where he'll get more playing time will be good for him - he's realistically a squad players at Newcastle right now, and you can see where he needs Prem match experience for his game to develop.
All these comments are very sad. PSR has sucked the soul out of football - I'm a Chelsea fan and after years of seeing us want our academy players in the lineup, Clearlake & Co are now desperate to offload them rather than integrate them due to PSR. Games gone and I won't be told otherwise.
That’s the main part of all this psr stuff that doesn’t sit right with me, it’s now smarter to sell your academy players for “pure profit” and replace them with new players rather than in the past when you had some financial troubles , you actually had to rely on your academy because you may not have the money to buy players
I don't know if anyone mentioned it, but his grandad played the same position as him, came through the academy, and was in the squad that won our last major trophy. He was injured around the same age as Elliot is now, bad tackle and his career was over. So for me, yes I wanted his grandson to stay and hopefully be part of a next trophy. And he should have been. Financially it's a good deal. Excellent even. Practically speaking, I believe he has family down there and hopefully he can make a real mark career-wise. But it shouldn't be the way of it.
It’s pretty crap but it’s the outcome of a system where everyone outside the top 6 has to sell any academy prospect as soon as they become regulars for “pure profit”. How the PL can look at that and think, yeah that’s fine, is shocking
Isn’t this all down to the likes of Newcastle, Everton and Forrest owners spunking absolute fortunes over short periods of time, in pursuit of short term success, and now having to pay the price? There are several clubs who focused on longer term sustainable growth who seem to be doing ok (Brentford, Brighton, Palace, Spurs).
Realistically, with Tonali coming back and our lack of European football his game time would have been limited. He can go and get some good game time and experience and if he develops how everybody hopes I wouldn’t be surprised on him coming back one day £35m for him is insane. Hope he does well at his new club
35 million isn’t as ridiculous as it first seems when you compare to other deals
35 mil for Anderson is not over inflated for me. How much did we pay for Gordon? At the time it felt like too much, but sometimes you pay for potential!
I just want to watch talented people kick football. Being bombarded with information about the shady financial side of football is exhausting. I was happier not knowing what went on behind the scenes back in the day.
Exactly
It reminds me very much of why I stopped watching F1 20+ years ago. I just wanted to watch cars go fast, but the sheer number of rules killed the fun.
I am.
The whole thing is not what football is about is it. I hate I know so much about it
Apparently Villa are going to get in trouble for signing Dobbin for £10m - which isn’t massively over-inflated (£10m signings in 2024 are like £2.5m signings in 2014, no one should really care), so Newcastle getting £35m for Elliot Anderson will surely also get both Newcastle and Forest looked at. PSR exists purely to protect the 6 so why are we surprised.
How could we get into trouble for it? Who’s the arbiter for “fair value” transfers? The Big Six may want one in order to lowball the other clubs but it’ll never happen
To answer the top question, I was reading something the other day that suggested the PL itself investigates and the clubs themselves explain why x and y are worth what they are, presumably using market examples as evidence. If they’re not satisfied it mentioned the “overvaluation” having to be returned. Whether they currently have the power to enforce it themselves I’m not sure. Assuming they did, as it stands, I’m not sure there would be much punishment other than the selling club losing out on revenue. But, as with everything regarding this topic, any “allowances” then set the new precedent and creates new opportunities for collusion. All very messy.
I can’t see any way for that to be abused 🙄 The selling club sells for whatever price they deem appropriate. Always have, always will. Nobody cared about Grealish or Rice costing more than they’re “worth”…but suddenly now Villa have strengthened and come closer to the PSR limit, everyone’s got something to say
Nobody said anything because everyone knows Man City are dodgy anyway. If arsenal had paid West Ham 100m then West Ham paid arsenal 100m for a couple of academy players no one had heard of it probably would have been raised.
If a club decides a player is worth £x and another club pays it then everybody else can eat shit to be quite honest
You don’t think it’s strange how a lot of these deals involve clubs directly to business with each other happen to be the clubs that need to make their account look better.
Couldn’t give a single fuck mate
Then you should have zero problems with anything the top 6 do then lol.
They’ll find another way to pull the ladder up I’m sure
You're part of it now lmao. Don't be a victim all your life.
No one cared in those particular situations because there wasn’t an underlying possibility that the two clubs involved were potentially colluding to avoid sanctions. I will explicitly point out that I don’t actually have an issue with the transaction being discussed, the values seem alright. But, whilst many commenters may just be using this as a stick to beat Villa with, I do think there’s an obvious conversation to be had about the rise of potential widespread collusion. Now that doesn’t even have to be just bottom-half clubs, it doesn’t even have to be at risk of breach clubs either. It’s about the issue of two or more parties, in the same competition, actively working together to mutually benefit. In theory, two “Big 6” clubs could actively start trading expensive academy products simply for immediate financial gain. Hoarding of talent could become even bigger for the simple matter of providing immediate cash injections in order to either increase spending power, or to cover potential breaches. There are a whole myriad of issues that could arise from FFP simply because teams, big & small, will do whatever it takes to try and legally circumvent them.
So either valuations need to be scrutinised or they don’t. They don’t just need scrutiny when sanctions are close. Make the rules less heavily favourable to the established elite and people will take them more seriously (Also worth pointing out that Villa have broken no rules)
You're an established elite
Suppose we are in relative terms
Zero chance of us getting any problems over Dobbin. Firstly they don't have a leg to stand on challenging clubs on valuations. Otherwise they'd have to look at everything from MaGuire to Brewster. Secondly there are already a ton of former sales setting precedents. Like Chuk, Ramsey or Villa signing Rogers.
Yep. As long as there are examples of players of similar skill and experience who have gone for same price or more then epl can whistle dixie. Ironic that the big 6's man city have played a huge part in setting those precedents
Whilst it maybe a small-scale issue now, would the other14 not be worse off if the likes of Man City manipulate this particular strategy using even bigger assets? Just as an example, City and Chelsea have both been on the FFP watchlist in recent years. To overcome this issue they could’ve colluded and switched Palmer and Gallagher for £50m each way. Suddenly they’ve earned 5x what Villa have and you’re back to square one in terms of financial gap.
All the numbers in your comment added up to 69. Congrats! 14 + 50 + 5 = 69 ^([Click here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=LuckyNumber-Bot&subject=Stalk%20Me%20Pls&message=%2Fstalkme) to have me scan all your future comments.) \ ^(Summon me on specific comments with u/LuckyNumber-Bot.)
Do you mean by buying players for under market value from clubs struggling to meet psr targets or by overinflating the value of their own players when they sell them?
Other 14 teams are equally, if not more, guilty of overinflating the values of their sales because they know others will just pay it. Is taking advantage of scenarios those teams put themselves in, anything new? Mid-table clubs love poaching players under market value from relegated sides, for example. Why’s that any different?
I'd say midtable clubs taking advantage of relegated clubs is based on footballing merit and the financial reality of relegated clubs having less income whereas the situation we've got now and also the hypothetical one you raise with city and Chelsea is entirely caused by a set of accountancy rules which is part of psr. Whether or not it's fair is irrelevant. My point is that the epl are going to have a hard time proving anything dodgy is going on when clubs can just point to previous deals where similar or worse players have been sold for same price or more. That will carry plenty of weight in any kind of hearing or legal setting
You seem under the impression the clubs want to do this. They are forced to. Buying players of relegated clubs or players that want to leave in general are normal market dynamics. PSR does not lead to normal market dynamics.
They don't have a leg to stand on for those kind of deals. As far as I'm aware, they can only investigate things tied to same party ownership. Until 14 clubs vote to say otherwise, this is perfectly acceptable, and I don't even see anything wrong with it tbh.
Been saying it for a while. All that matters now is your accountants and lawyers. What happens on the pitch is just a sideshow now. PL is devolving into a bad product.
It’s all a distraction from Oil City’s 115 charges.
Erm... no, we love it.
Football now is all talk about PSR, finances, statistics, and who has the most evil owners
Yes. It’s even more boring than VAR
👍
Mate I was sick of it 6 month ago
Well it’s now what runs the league for us. It’s the most important issue for the non yo-yo clubs.
Won’t go away. After today all will be finalised, and the premier league can begin investigation into whatever they see fit
Vlachidimos is very experienced from his time at Benfica, possibly a slight overpayment but will provide competition for Pope I think.
Not in a million is he competition, he’s wank - Benfica were happy to see the back of him
Yeah think he’ll be 3rd choice to replace Karius. I’m expecting us to move for Trafford as #2
I'm not convinced by Trafford at all and it could be argued that he was one of the main reasons Burnley went down. He might do better behind a more stable defence though.
Yeah he's nowhere near ready to be #1 yet, he'll be an understudy to Pope with the view of becoming #1 in a few years time. Tbf he's an extremely highly rated England U21 and you very rarely see keepers in top leagues at that age as they're often late bloomers. I think he has a high ceiling, so time will tell whether he reaches it or not...
The sub is literaly just teams that have or are close to overspending playing the victim constantly lol. It's genuinly very pathetic.