Hank Scorpio Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 19 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. Villa and other teams are having to do this because the sky 6 cheated and took advantage of lack of rules. Then they had rules put in place to try and stop other teams competing with them. To see so called Villa fans almost taking sides with these teams and fans thinking what we are doing is wrong is mind blowing to me. We are working within the actual rules. Like when we sold Villa Park. That soon got closed. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duke313 Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 2 minutes ago, Hank Scorpio said: Villa and other teams are having to do this because the sky 6 cheated and took advantage of lack of rules. Then they had rules put in place to try and stop other teams competing with them. To see so called Villa fans almost taking sides with these teams and fans thinking what we are doing is wrong is mind blowing to me. We are working within the actual rules. Like when we sold Villa Park. That soon got closed. 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. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nick76 Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 36 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. So the rules are there (as per the name) is to safeguard the profit and sustainability of clubs…blocking clubs doing these transfers and booking them as we are, how is blocking us would be aiding profit and sustainability. It wouldn’t be for the original purpose of the creation of the rules. Blocking it would only to be keep the current status quo. If we had sold Tim to Fulham and brought Dobbin with that money then nobody would question those deals in terms of the rules yet the accounting treatment of Tim going to Everton and Dobbin coming to us is exactly the same accounting treatment. The PSR should be about profit and sustainability of a club, not limiting one transaction but sanctioning the other where accounting treatment are the same….that is not the purpose of the rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allani Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 1 hour ago, duke313 said: If teams are using it to gain an advantage, it can and almost certainly will be stopped. Doesn't any amendment to PSR have to be passed by a 2/3 majority of clubs in the PL? If so then if this is a "loophole" that actually benefits clubs outside the Top 6 I think it might become harder to force the change through - at least not without making other concessions. I can't imagine that there are 13 clubs out there looking at this and thinking - wow this is really going to undermine our position and so I am going to oppose it. There are 4 clubs who would definitely want to shut it down, 1 who won't care because they will do what they like anyway and 1 who will definitely be in favour because they're going to be in a pickle for a while because of the way they've tried to "dodge" the amortisation rules. You'd imagine the rest would all be thinking - hey this seems better than having to sell our best player to Man Utd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don_Simon Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 1 hour ago, duke313 said: You don't honestly believe that do you? There is nothing anyone can say that can convince me this transfer is anything other than a PSR reach around between the two clubs. He might turn out to be a useful player, but there is 0% chance we'd be signing him if we were;t repaying the favour to Everton for signing Tim. I believe that we've signed a player from Everton and they've signed a player from us. This is fact. You are inferring, through opinion and conspiracy theory that there is more to it. Of course, within your right to do so. The Premier League, FA, UEFA, FIFA, whoever makes the rules though will go with my thinking because yours is impossible to prove and even hard to take action against. How do you stop teams making transfers? "If teams are within £30,000,000 of breaching PSR they can't make transfers with each other"? It's nonsensical. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allani Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 18 minutes ago, nick76 said: So the rules are there (as per the name) is to safeguard the profit and sustainability of clubs…blocking clubs doing these transfers and booking them as we are, how is blocking us would be aiding profit and sustainability. It wouldn’t be for the original purpose of the creation of the rules. Blocking it would only to be keep the current status quo. If we had sold Tim to Fulham and brought Dobbin with that money then nobody would question those deals in terms of the rules yet the accounting treatment of Tim going to Everton and Dobbin coming to us is exactly the same accounting treatment. The PSR should be about profit and sustainability of a club, not limiting one transaction but sanctioning the other where accounting treatment are the same….that is not the purpose of the rules. Exactly close this loophole and then all that happens is next summer we sell a player to Everton, Everton sells a player to Fulham and Fulham sell a player to us. Good luck proving that those are "swap" deals. So then what is the option - stop a club that might be close to PSR limits selling any player to a team that might be close to PSR limits? Stop any team close to PSR limits from buying any players? What then happens if they sell a player so that they might no longer close to PSR limits - would they still not be able to sign anyone? I mean you can't ban a club from operating in the transfer market when that is the best way for them to earn revenue / make profit. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duke313 Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 3 minutes ago, Don_Simon said: I believe that we've signed a player from Everton and they've signed a player from us. This is fact. You are inferring, through opinion and conspiracy theory that there is more to it. Of course, within your right to do so. The Premier League, FA, UEFA, FIFA, whoever makes the rules though will go with my thinking because yours is impossible to prove and even hard to take action against. How do you stop teams making transfers? "If teams are within £30,000,000 of breaching PSR they can't make transfers with each other"? It's nonsensical. You don't stop teams making transfers, as @MaVilla post details, you just stop the teams from booking the money received from these deals as profit under PSR. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duke313 Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 13 minutes ago, allani said: Doesn't any amendment to PSR have to be passed by a 2/3 majority of clubs in the PL? If so then if this is a "loophole" that actually benefits clubs outside the Top 6 I think it might become harder to force the change through - at least not without making other concessions. I can't imagine that there are 13 clubs out there looking at this and thinking - wow this is really going to undermine our position and so I am going to oppose it. There are 4 clubs who would definitely want to shut it down, 1 who won't care because they will do what they like anyway and 1 who will definitely be in favour because they're going to be in a pickle for a while because of the way they've tried to "dodge" the amortisation rules. You'd imagine the rest would all be thinking - hey this seems better than having to sell our best player to Man Utd. That's what we though would happen with the proposal we put forward to increase the losses allowed under PSR, only two clubs voted for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allani Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 Just now, duke313 said: That's what we though would happen with the proposal we put forward to increase the losses allowed under PSR, only two clubs voted for it. I think that was partly down to timing and maybe there being a lot of clubs knowing that this season they didn't need the extra £30m and that maybe we were only proposing it because we were in the **** and not wanting to give us a "get out of jail free" card. I wonder whether it would have got more votes if it had been proposed in September? Also I feel sure that we (or another team) will at some point come back to this in another guise and I'd be surprised if the wording wasn't such as to make it more attractive to other clubs. The more that I look at it - the more I think this was a proposal that Villa had no real expectation of passing. It looks like the opening move in a much more clever chess move that's now got a few people scratching their heads and wondering whether they have missed something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don_Simon Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 1 minute ago, duke313 said: You don't stop teams making transfers, as @MaVilla post details, you just stop the teams from booking the money received from these deals as profit under PSR. And back to the original question... Which teams? How do you decide who can and can't make transfers that are / aren't allowed to book profit against PSR? What's the cut off for PSR? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duke313 Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 2 minutes ago, Don_Simon said: And back to the original question... Which teams? How do you decide who can and can't make transfers that are / aren't allowed to book profit against PSR? What's the cut off for PSR? Two transfers between the same clubs in the same window. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maqroll Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 6 hours ago, Teale's 'tache said: Some of these fans just live in perpetual rage, looking for the next thing to get angry about, facts and logic hold no importance to them, they'll just moan and rage until the next thing comes along to cause even more outrage. Who knew so many Villa fans were Republicans from America! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pez1974 Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 7 minutes ago, duke313 said: Two transfers between the same clubs in the same window. That would be crazy So if (for example) we took a youth team player from Man City for a notional fee - say £10k - we wouldn't be able to bank the money from selling Grealish to them for £100m? It would cause chaos. The summer window is 10-12 weeks long; every deal would be held up until the last minute just in case another player might be of interest too. I suspect the PFA would get involved too, as it could effectively be a restraint of trade issue. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don_Simon Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 8 minutes ago, duke313 said: Two transfers between the same clubs in the same window. So in this world, Liverpool want to buy Bernando Silva from City and City want to buy VVD in a blockbuster transfer, completely serperate of each other, wouldn't be allowed? Or, would be allowed, but the proceeds wouldn't be used for PSR purposes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duke313 Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Pez1974 said: That would be crazy So if (for example) we took a youth team player from Man City for a notional fee - say £10k - we wouldn't be able to bank the money from selling Grealish to them for £100m? It would cause chaos. The summer window is 10-12 weeks long; every deal would be held up until the last minute just in case another player might be of interest too. I suspect the PFA would get involved too, as it could effectively be a restraint of trade issue. We would, £100m -10k = 99,990,000. If we sold a player for £100m and bought one of theirs for £100m, then we wouldn't. Edited June 24 by duke313 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duke313 Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 4 minutes ago, Don_Simon said: So in this world, Liverpool want to buy Bernando Silva from City and City want to buy VVD in a blockbuster transfer, completely serperate of each other, wouldn't be allowed? Or, would be allowed, but the proceeds wouldn't be used for PSR purposes? Neither club in your example need to do this for PSR purposes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr_Dogg Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 6 minutes ago, duke313 said: Neither club in your example need to do this for PSR purposes. Everything is for PSR purposes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duke313 Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 Just now, Mr_Dogg said: Everything is for PSR purposes. The red cartel and City don't need to help each other as to not breach PSR and get a points deduction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nick76 Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 19 minutes ago, duke313 said: Two transfers between the same clubs in the same window. 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. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allani Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 25 minutes ago, duke313 said: Two transfers between the same clubs in the same window. That is complicated by the fact that transfer windows and PSR accounting windows are not aligned and actually different clubs have different accounting windows. Let's say we sell a player for £20m to Everton on 30th June - the last day of our accounting period and then we buy a player from Everton for £15m on 1st July (the next accounting year for us but Everton's accounting period runs to 8th July) - the two transfers have taken place in different PSR periods for us. Surely you can't then go back and say that we can only book a £5m profit in the previous accounting year. Or if we sold a player for £60m to City in August but then bought a player from them for £20m in June because we had just qualified for the CL and needed strength is depth that the £60m profit from the first transfer would be downgraded to £40m then meaning that we could no longer buy the player in June. It would become an administrative nightmare unless the league enforced consistent accounting periods and directly linked transfer windows to accounting periods (and even that would be a logistic challenge). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts