tomav84 Posted June 24 VT Supporter Share Posted June 24 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Don_Simon said: What's the loophole? Everton wanted Irogbenum so bought him. Villa wanted Dobbins so bought him. How can this be "closed"? exactly. whether the bolded statements are true or not, that's certainly the line that will be given to the FA edit: i guess there's an argument as to why when you sell a player for 10m you can bank 10m to the PSR balance sheet immediately, but if you buy a player you ammorise it across whatever period the contract is. The PL has already addressed this in part by limiting the number of years to 5 following chelsea's 7 year contracts but i wonder if there's further restrictions around the corner Edited June 24 by tomav84 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david-avfc Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 (edited) 1 hour ago, duke313 said: That doesn't change the fact the the transfer of Tim/Dobbins is mutually beneficial to both team in terms of PSR, we're trading players we won't miss to circumvent the shit PSR rules, that is the "loophole" they will try and close. I don’t get what the perceived loophole is - you can’t sell players for PSR?? That’s literally what the PSR rules are for, to make clubs balance the cost of buying and selling players, which is what we’re doing. Ultimately the rules have been designed to prioritise player profit over amortisation hence all the clubs in the league are player trading for PSR, we’re just perhaps doing it more overtly than others due to situation we’re in and the leagues self imposed arbitrary cut off dates Edited June 24 by david-avfc 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PieFacE Posted June 24 VT Supporter Share Posted June 24 Yeah there isn't really any "loophole" going on here. They can't just stop certain clubs from trading with each other or prevent the trades from counting towards PSR. That's surely extremely illegal. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don_Simon Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 4 minutes ago, david-avfc said: I don’t get what the perceived loophole is - you can’t sell players for PSR?? That’s literally what the PSR rules are for, to make clubs balance the cost of buying and selling players, which is what we’re doing. Ultimately the rules have been designed to prioritise player profit over amortisation hence all the clubs in the league are player trading for PSR, we’re just perhaps doing it more overtly than others due to situation we’re in and the leagues self imposed arbitrary cut off dates Thank you. There is nothing to see here. I understand other teams fans creating nonsensical theories about this, but our own fans? Insania. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duke313 Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 4 minutes ago, david-avfc said: I don’t get what the perceived loophole is - you can’t sell players for PSR?? That’s literally what the PSR rules are for, to make clubs balance the cost of buying and selling players, which is what we’re doing. Ultimately the rules have been designed to prioritise player profit over amortisation hence all the clubs in the league are player trading for PSR, we’re just perhaps doing it more overtly than others due to situation we’re in and the leagues self imposed arbitrary cut off dates It wasn't designed for clubs to buying reserve players off each other, and then buying one back for a similar fee in the same window. You scratch my back, i'll scratch yours.... that's the loophole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaVilla Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 (edited) 8 minutes ago, david-avfc said: I don’t get what the perceived loophole is - you can’t sell players for PSR?? That’s literally what the PSR rules are for, to make clubs balance the cost of buying and selling players, which is what we’re doing. Ultimately the rules have been designed to prioritise player profit over amortisation hence all the clubs in the league are player trading for PSR, we’re just perhaps doing it more overtly than others due to situation we’re in and the leagues self imposed arbitrary cut off dates the "loophole" is meant to be 2 teams selling players to each other to be able to book the profit now, and spread purchases over X years, to create an artificially improved PSR position. There are rules proposed to close this "loophole" in the near future, where if 2 teams buy a player from each other in the same season, the costs are offset. For example, team A buys player from team B for 50m, team B buys player from team A for 50m in same season, as of now both teams can book that profit now, and spread the purchase cost over X years. The new proposal is to force teams to offset the costs, so in that 50m/50m sale/purchase the balance is ZERO between those 2 teams, so zero is the net amount for PSR purposes. one of the new proposed rules is that when 2 teams purchase/sell to each other during a single season, the totals are offset and only the remaining balance can be counted. Basically, they are desperate to maintain the power structure how it is now, and give teams less scope to improve their PSR position by cross trading. Although, tbf, this rule probably came about because teams like Juve have been doing it for a while, such as Juve over inflating the Arthur Melo 2 way transfer to improve their PSR position. it was the Melo/Pjanic "swap" between barca and Juve for 60/70m each way, which many said was artificially inflated to improve both clubs PSR, this as back in 2020, so its not a new thing. Edited June 24 by MaVilla 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PieFacE Posted June 24 VT Supporter Share Posted June 24 (edited) 3 minutes ago, MaVilla said: There are rules proposed to close this "loophole" in the near future, where if 2 teams buy a player from each other in the same season, the costs are offset. So in this scenario, you just increase the amount of clubs involved. Villa buy a player from Chelsea. Chelsea buy one from Everton. Everton buy one from Newcastle. Newcastle buy one from Villa. And around we go Edited June 24 by PieFacE 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaVilla Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 Just now, PieFacE said: So in this scenario, you just increase the amount of clubs involved. Villa buy a player from Chelsea. Chelsea buy one from Everton. Everton buy one from Newcastle. Newcastle buy one from Villa. good plan, speak to Monchi, im sure he would be interested to find a new loophole 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colhint Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 Which is what I said originally, if we get 6 teams involved they can't change the rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duke313 Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 6 minutes ago, MaVilla said: the "loophole" is meant to be 2 teams selling players to each other to be able to book the profit now, and spread purchases over X years, to create an artificially improved PSR position. There are rules proposed to close this "loophole" in the near future, where if 2 teams buy a player from each other in the same season, the costs are offset. For example, team A buys player from team B for 50m, team B buys player from team A for 50m in same season, as of now both teams can book that profit now, and spread the purchase cost over X years. The new proposal is to force teams to offset the costs, so in that 50m/50m sale/purchase the balance is ZERO between those 2 teams, so zero is the net amount for PSR purposes. one of the new proposed rules is that when 2 teams purchase/sell to each other during a single season, the totals are offset and only the remaining balance can be counted. Basically, they are desperate to maintain the power structure how it is now, and give teams less scope to improve their PSR position by cross trading. Although, tbf, this rule probably came about because teams like Juve have been doing it for a while, such as Juve over inflating the Arthur Melo 2 way transfer to improve their PSR position. it was the Melo/Pjanic "swap" between barca and Juve for 60/70m each way, which many said was artificially inflated to improve both clubs PSR, this as back in 2020, so its not a new thing. Finally... someone gets it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duke313 Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 3 minutes ago, PieFacE said: So in this scenario, you just increase the amount of clubs involved. Villa buy a player from Chelsea. Chelsea buy one from Everton. Everton buy one from Newcastle. Newcastle buy one from Villa. And around we go More moving parts, more things can go wrong. All it would take is one team pulling out to screw one of the over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PieFacE Posted June 24 VT Supporter Share Posted June 24 (edited) 1 minute ago, duke313 said: More moving parts, more things can go wrong. All it would take is one team pulling out to screw one of the over. Very true. But it would still be incredibly easy to get around if the proposed rules were put in place. (to which, i'm not advocating, just theorising) Edited June 24 by PieFacE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duke313 Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 1 minute ago, PieFacE said: Very true. But it would still be incredibly easy to get around if the proposed rules were put in place. (to which, i'm not advocating, just theorising) Yep, I think they'll try and introduce that. Then when teams find a way round it again it will just be binned off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duke313 Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 6 minutes ago, colhint said: Which is what I said originally, if we get 6 teams involved they can't change the rules. This would help, but the last proposal we had was shot down so wouldn;'t hold out much hope 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeyjavfc Posted June 24 VT Supporter Share Posted June 24 (edited) I have always avoiding thinking too hard about PSR but it’s hard to avoid at the moment. Thinking about it closely, it is pretty mad that SPORTING competition allows different levels of investment for its competitors. Literally a handicap system within a league that would consider itself fair and level field…that ain’t fair. Spending control IS needed for both competitiveness (to prevent nation states from spending £1b a year) AND club sustainability purposes (prevent debt, administration, stadium sales etc), but these should really be entirely separate regulations. Trying to capture both these issues with a single set of regs is the route of the problem. Edited June 24 by mikeyjavfc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david-avfc Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 7 minutes ago, duke313 said: It wasn't designed for clubs to buying reserve players off each other, and then buying one back for a similar fee in the same window. You scratch my back, i'll scratch yours.... that's the loophole. None of the parties are related, why should the league dictate who or what each club spends its amortisation budget on? Player swaps have been around forever, it’s not for the league to say who you can or can’t buy and they can’t say well he’s allegedly only a “reserve” player so you can’t buy or sell him. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 2 hours ago, duke313 said: What doesn't make sense? From an accounting perspective. How can clubs produce accurate accounts if you prevent them from recording the sale of assets and/or the amortisation of depreciating assets? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david-avfc Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 6 minutes ago, duke313 said: Finally... someone gets it. Everyone “gets it” but no one is getting their knickers in a twist about it like you are We’re operating as the rules have been designed, end of. If they want to look at loopholes they should close off the ability to sell “other” fixed assets like hotels and stadiums (which we did before) for PSR gains, which they recently voted not to do. Or they should close off the multi club model and/or specifically intra-group trading like Man City are with Girona / Troyes. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duke313 Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 3 minutes ago, david-avfc said: None of the parties are related, why should the league dictate who or what each club spends its amortisation budget on? Player swaps have been around forever, it’s not for the league to say who you can or can’t buy and they can’t say well he’s allegedly only a “reserve” player so you can’t buy or sell him. They aren't that common. And these technically aren't player swaps, we're booking the fee out and fee in separately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duke313 Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 1 minute ago, david-avfc said: Everyone “gets it” but no one is getting their knickers in a twist about it like you are We’re operating as the rules have been designed, end of. If they want to look at loopholes they should close off the ability to sell “other” fixed assets like hotels and stadiums (which we did before) for PSR gains, which they recently voted not to do. Or they should close off the multi club model and/or specifically intra-group trading like Man City are with Girona / Troyes. If you say so Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts