allani Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 (edited) 4 minutes ago, cheltenham_villa said: I dont understand the denial in this thread, we all know what were doing and no one in their right mind thought kellyman was worth 19m. I suspect the league will at some point come up with some sort of classification around expected fees in the same way they police commercial deals and the same way they brough in an amortisation cap. Until then, lets just exploit and laugh about it. Finally were acting like a big 6 club rather than just saying its not fair. Maguire - £80m. How do you evaluate what any player is worth against that? Imagine the outrage if Juve offered us €65m for Douglas Luiz and then UEFA / PL rock up and say - nah sorry according to Transfermkt.com he's only worth €35m so that's the most you can sell him for. There would be legal cases being raised left, right and centre. Or how about Spurs offer Forest £15m for a player they need to sell to hit their PSR numbers. The PL say - nah sorry he's worth £30m so Forest can't sell him. Forest now miss their PSR numbers. In August Spurs go back and pay £30m for said player. Can the PL now dock Forest points for breaching PSR when they were the ones that stopped a deal being made? Edited June 24 by allani 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duke313 Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 11 minutes ago, nick76 said: Again why is this wrong? The rules are for profit and sustainability, I’m not sure what doing this does for that premise because it has the same accounting treatment as say Tim going to Fulham and us buying Dobbins. The rules should be helping clubs around profit and sustainability as it says in the name. This is just arbitrarily deciding what they like and don’t like on face value not anything to do with profit and sustainability because the transactions I mentioned above are treated the same way accounting wise. I'd imagine your example is how they want PSR to operate. But the deal we're doing (particularly the Tim/Dobbins deal IMO) is the PSR equivalent of two teams playing for a draw so they both qualify for the next round. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don_Simon Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 32 minutes ago, duke313 said: Neither club in your example need to do this for PSR purposes. How close do you have to be to PSR prison to be within your case study of PSR purposes? £5,000,000? £10,000,000? £30,000,000? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PieFacE Posted June 24 VT Supporter Share Posted June 24 3 minutes ago, Don_Simon said: How close do you have to be to PSR prison to be within your case study of PSR purposes? £5,000,000? £10,000,000? £30,000,000? The logic to which is being discussed has been explained here: It was in this thread but has been moved to the correct thread. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul514 Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 15 minutes ago, allani said: Maguire - £80m. How do you evaluate what any player is worth against that? Imagine the outrage if Juve offered us €65m for Douglas Luiz and then UEFA / PL rock up and say - nah sorry according to Transfermkt.com he's only worth €35m so that's the most you can sell him for. There would be legal cases being raised left, right and centre. Or how about Spurs offer Forest £15m for a player they need to sell to hit their PSR numbers. The PL say - nah sorry he's worth £30m so Forest can't sell him. Forest now miss their PSR numbers. In August Spurs go back and pay £30m for said player. Can the PL now dock Forest points for breaching PSR when they were the ones that stopped a deal being made? Totally correct 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Follyfoot Posted June 24 VT Supporter Share Posted June 24 2 hours ago, Don_Simon said: Thank you. There is nothing to see here. I understand other teams fans creating nonsensical theories about this, but our own fans? Insania. Insania, big fan of Pete, I have got all of his hit 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don_Simon Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 Just now, Follyfoot said: Insania, big fan of Pete, I have got all of his hit My friends and I throw in the Insania single artwork when someone says something batshitkray in the group chat. It fits this "loophole" chat quite well I think! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheltenham_villa Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 23 minutes ago, allani said: Maguire - £80m. How do you evaluate what any player is worth against that? Imagine the outrage if Juve offered us €65m for Douglas Luiz and then UEFA / PL rock up and say - nah sorry according to Transfermkt.com he's only worth €35m so that's the most you can sell him for. There would be legal cases being raised left, right and centre. Or how about Spurs offer Forest £15m for a player they need to sell to hit their PSR numbers. The PL say - nah sorry he's worth £30m so Forest can't sell him. Forest now miss their PSR numbers. In August Spurs go back and pay £30m for said player. Can the PL now dock Forest points for breaching PSR when they were the ones that stopped a deal being made? I imagine similar conversations took place on the City message board when their owners were chucking 100m sponsorship deals. Who can decide what is and isnt wrong? The people that make the rules will decide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nick76 Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 31 minutes ago, duke313 said: I'd imagine your example is how they want PSR to operate. But the deal we're doing (particularly the Tim/Dobbins deal IMO) is the PSR equivalent of two teams playing for a draw so they both qualify for the next round. No, that’s apples and pears comparison. Again going back to my examples why should one be allowed (Tim to Fulham) and the other not (Tim to Everton) in terms of profit and sustainability? Remember, this is all about profit and sustainability of a club supposedly. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrBlack Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 The main thing I don't get is why they even care about this supposed loophole. We've effectively deferred a loss to spread it over the next five years. This isn't helping us in the long term. If we don't continue to boost our income sustainably, we will end up making our position even harder to maintain, and eventually the house of cards will collapse. We can't keep trading youth products to improve our year end position, as the amortisation costs will just keep rising. PSR actively encouraging short term thinking, is exactly what it shouldn't be doing. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allani Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 20 minutes ago, cheltenham_villa said: I imagine similar conversations took place on the City message board when their owners were chucking 100m sponsorship deals. Who can decide what is and isnt wrong? The people that make the rules will decide. Well the people who made the rules didn't decide because the rule they wrote didn't specify such a scenario. They amended the rules afterwards but by then it was too late. The market price for City renewing their deals will not be the same as the market price that would be used if say Comcast tried to match their £100m sponsorship deals by sponsoring the Comcast Stand (previously known as the Doug Ellis Stand). The Top 6 have traded players between themselves - maybe not to get around PSR rules but it's certainly helped them maintain their positions at the top table and who is to say that selling a player for £50m hasn't then allowed a team to spend £80m on another that they might not have been able to afford within the specified limits otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Follyfoot Posted June 24 VT Supporter Share Posted June 24 26 minutes ago, MrBlack said: The main thing I don't get is why they even care about this supposed loophole. We've effectively deferred a loss to spread it over the next five years. This isn't helping us in the long term. If we don't continue to boost our income sustainably, we will end up making our position even harder to maintain, and eventually the house of cards will collapse. We can't keep trading youth products to improve our year end position, as the amortisation costs will just keep rising. PSR actively encouraging short term thinking, is exactly what it shouldn't be doing. There is a chance we might kick on and boost our income and become more than just an annoyance so kill it in the water stone dead. Why take the chance of what might happen is the thinking Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 25 minutes ago, MrBlack said: The main thing I don't get is why they even care about this supposed loophole. We've effectively deferred a loss to spread it over the next five years. This isn't helping us in the long term. If we don't continue to boost our income sustainably, we will end up making our position even harder to maintain, and eventually the house of cards will collapse. We can't keep trading youth products to improve our year end position, as the amortisation costs will just keep rising. PSR actively encouraging short term thinking, is exactly what it shouldn't be doing. This is a very important point. Much like Chelsea's eight-year contracts, what we're doing has short-term benefits and long-term costs. If our rivals were smarter, they'd not interrupt us while we're in the process of making what could be a very big mistake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheltenham_villa Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 28 minutes ago, allani said: Well the people who made the rules didn't decide because the rule they wrote didn't specify such a scenario. They amended the rules afterwards but by then it was too late. The market price for City renewing their deals will not be the same as the market price that would be used if say Comcast tried to match their £100m sponsorship deals by sponsoring the Comcast Stand (previously known as the Doug Ellis Stand). The Top 6 have traded players between themselves - maybe not to get around PSR rules but it's certainly helped them maintain their positions at the top table and who is to say that selling a player for £50m hasn't then allowed a team to spend £80m on another that they might not have been able to afford within the specified limits otherwise. It may not be specifically written into the rule but when commercial agreements happen today, a view is taken on whether its fair and within market value. When a club sells an asset like a stadium or a hotel, a view is taken on whether its fair and within market value (this happened to villa when we sold our stadium). In the future, i dont see why the same people wouldnt be taking a view on players being fair value. Everything about Evertons breach was an independent person saying that they didnt agree with Evertons determination on how their losses should be classified. From a villa perspective, i love to see us doing all we can, but lets not pretend that the rule makers cant just decide they dont like this and then do something about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hank Scorpio Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 3 hours ago, duke313 said: What are you on about taking sides I never at any point said I was against us doing this, I merely suggested that it will be closed, just like the selling the stadium sale you mentioned, just like chelseas 8 year contracts, this too will be closed if teams are exploiting it. I quoted you by mistake but my point overall remains! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duke313 Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 come on Newcastle… Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WallisFrizz Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 It quotes rule B15 which states “In all matters and transactions relating to the league each club, official and director shall behave towards each other club, official, director and the league with the utmost good faith. For the avoidance of doubt and by way of example only, it shall be a breach of the duties under this rule to act dishonestly towards the league or another club; or engage in conduct that is intended to circumvent these rules or obstruct the board’s investigation of compliance with them.” 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villarule123 Posted June 24 VT Supporter Share Posted June 24 1 minute ago, WallisFrizz said: It quotes rule B15 which states “In all matters and transactions relating to the league each club, official and director shall behave towards each other club, official, director and the league with the utmost good faith. For the avoidance of doubt and by way of example only, it shall be a breach of the duties under this rule to act dishonestly towards the league or another club; or engage in conduct that is intended to circumvent these rules or obstruct the board’s investigation of compliance with them.” This is what I was worried about when the Tim deal was first rumoured. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulMcGrath_5 Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 We won’t be found guilty of anything at all, so before everyone starts getting worried—chill. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rightdm00 Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 PSR is the biggest joke ever. Just put an equal spending cap on all clubs and be done with it. Add in a luxury tax for ambitious owners who wish to spend over. Trying to determine what's "fair", just silly. For example release clauses are sometimes set to arbitraryly high values just to dissuade incoming bids. Or how about the players value to a club versus his value based on stats. Jack was never a £100 million player if you look at his performances alone but base it on his value to Villa (youth player, team captain...) and maybe you get there. Look at the American sports league, who are kings of limiting spending to ensure profit and sustainability. They would never have dreamed up this dodgy system where a team of accountants are of equal importance as your sporting director and scouts. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts