Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

General Premier League Thread 2023-24 Mod Note in op 27/6/23 And 21/05/24

1404405406407409

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,691 ✭✭✭doc_17


    That’s absolute madness from Newcastle, adding another injury prone striker to their squad. He only has a year left on his deal, wonder what the fee is?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,702 ✭✭✭giveitholly


    Could it mean that Isak is moving to a bigger club?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 35,116 ✭✭✭✭~Rebel~


    maybe the opposite… if their star forward was moving on I think they’d be aiming higher. Whereas they do need some depth up front, which DCL would be alright for.

    Subscribe to save Boards.ie from closing down: The Bad News

    https://subscriptions.boards.ie/



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,629 ✭✭✭Augme


    Callum Wilson is 32, talk of him possibly going to Saudi Arbia. Much more like a replacement for him. DCL for Isak would be a real step down in intend and ambition from Newcastle.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,194 ✭✭✭ForestFire


    It does seem to be a huge loop hole they are all using now.

    So do Forest get in on the act??

    If they don't, and they are charged again, can they use these deals as a defence, will the PL look at these deals like the Man City Sponsorship corruption??

    Again it will be back to the Lawyers to decide…



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,882 ✭✭✭✭Fitz*


    It might be something to do with DCL counting as a HG player, and because Everton need some profit for PSR rules, but so do Newcastle so there is a mutual benefit if Everton were then to buy someone from Newcastle.

    A bit of a transfer merry go around between clubs who all need some profit before June 30th.

    .

    Maatsen - Chelsea to Villa

    Kellyman - Villa to Chelsea

    .

    DCL - Everton to Newcastle

    Some attacker like Minteh - Newcastle to Everton

    .

    Dobbin - Everton to Villa

    Iroegbunam - Villa to Everton



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 41,978 ✭✭✭✭eagle eye


    It's like they've decided that they need a like for like, injury prone player leaves and injury prone player arrives.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,882 ✭✭✭✭Fitz*


    What's the loophole?

    There's no rules against this, and player swaps have been going on for years. Previously they just would have cancelled each other out so they would be free transfers but now they are swapping official fees just to put on the accounting books.

    It's not usual for Club A to ask Club B can they buy Player X and then Club B say while we're at it, why don't we buy Player Y.



  • Posts: 45,738 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    DCL.

    A grand total of 14 league goals in the last three seasons.

    He peaked in 20/21 and has been on a downward spiral since.

    Fantastic that Newcastle are signing this calibre of player. It doesn't say much for them tbh.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,306 ✭✭✭davemckenna25


    Of course there are no rules against it. That's why it's a loophole. If there were rules against it, they couldn't do it.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,194 ✭✭✭ForestFire


    Selling Fringe players to each other, at potentially over-inflated prices(although this is not the concern), for the exact same (or very similar) prices for the sole purpose to avoid PSR.

    (How many deals normally go through in the past this early in the transfer window)

    It's a loophole because there are no rules, Just like City's claims, there are no rules, for the owner's other company, to sponsor the stadium and/or shirt for 10s or 100s times the market value!!

    We either want a fair PSR and nothing at all and stop punishing a few clubs who were honest and cooperated fully and took their punishment, that could have relegated them and really caused a financial problem.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,472 ✭✭✭theoneeyedman


    What's the con though, what are they doing 'wrong'?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,194 ✭✭✭ForestFire


    Players is sold from Club A to B for 10M and another player from B to A for 10m.

    Each club books an immediate 10M profit for selling, and only a loss of 2M for buying, as the player has a 5year contract so the fee is spread over 5years.

    Each club make a net profit of 8M, and then repeats with another club or the same club.

    All deals done at the start of the transfer window, which is not normally when player sales are made, because they need to meet the magic 30th June deadline.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,306 ✭✭✭davemckenna25


    From a transfer point of view, nothing.

    If Just making the transfers to satisfy financial rules then that's different.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,882 ✭✭✭✭Fitz*


    Except there are rules against clubs having over inflated sponsorship deals from associated party's. You should look up the recent voting on it, and maybe the whole rule as it was brought in in 2021.

    These transfers taking place now are just like any regular transfers that have taken place for the last 60 years. It's not a loophole. How is selling players a loophole? There's nothing legally wrong with them and what do you want to do to stop it? Stop clubs selling a player to a club they just bought from? That will never be allowed as it blocks the freedom of movement which is basically another bosman ruling.

    You might thing it's dodgy, and it certainly does come across as a bit immoral, but it's not wrong. It does show which clubs are happy to fall onto the Man City / Newcastle side of the argument when it comes to PL rules though.

    Selling players at inflated prices will be investigated though, as Juventus found out when they did the Rakitic-Arthur swap deal with Barcelona. I'm fairly sure that Spurs's current sporting director is still banned from working for Spurs, officially, as a result. Just like clubs are not allowed to sell their players to linked clubs with inflated prices and how clubs cannot have inflated associated party sponsorship deals.



  • Posts: 12,836 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    It's not a loophole but Juventus got in massive trouble for it in Italy. It affects the profit and tax bill of the clubs so HMRC may find it interesting. Not exactly arms length valuations.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,882 ✭✭✭✭Fitz*


    Just mentioned above about how Patrici got banned for it.

    But Juventus/Patrici were banned for inflated transfer prices that were unrealistic, it wasn't for selling players in a linked transfer. There's a difference.

    For example when Sanchez & Mhki were swapped by Man Utd & Arsenal, there was no real uproar. Some people said that they were free transfers but others say that they were £35m each. You can't ban those transfers but you can have restrictions on the prices, to a degree.

    But when Aston Villa pay the release clause for Maatsen, Chelsea can argue that they are receiving the release clause and it's fine and all above board.



  • Posts: 12,836 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Maatsen deal looks fine, but tax authorities can absolutely look at swap deals if they impact the clubs taxable profit. Not sure the PL can do anything, but it's murky waters for the clubs themselves. The big overhanging question for me is, sure Chelsea have found all of these loopholes, but is the club remotely sustainable right now? They're owned by a hedge fund who will look for a return at some point



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,284 ✭✭✭pavb2


    Given the loopholes with PSR much as I think there should be a cap on players salary to at least try and level things out I don’t see how it can work as we’ve seen teams will just be more creative in how they pay renumeration.



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 23,188 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bounty Hunter


    Villa are actually paying slightly above what Maatsen's release clause was because that clause had just expired but tbh 37m for a 22yr old LB as highly rated as him (just started in the CL final etc) is fair enough in todays market especially for an English club in the Champions league with such wealthy backers.

    Aside from that I find it very odd to see any teams trying to not be held back by PSR suddenly beiing labelled as falling in line behind City and Newcastle. Each case is massively different.

    Everton have been penalised multiple times and after a failed takeover recently, there was even talk of going into administration at one point. They fear another relegation battle and having to sell off their best players due to these PSR rules while trying to get new owners in and thusly are perhaps getting creative but not breaking any rules so as not to have to…. How are they falling in line with state run clubs who have hundred of charges hanging over them for falsefying accounts etc who also object to not being allowed essentially sponsor themselves to the tune of whatever they want.

    These transfers will probably be held up as a reason why PSR has to change, perhaps to the anchoring system previously suggested, perhaps to something else, but I don't neccesarily blame the clubs for doing what is best for them in this moment. The thing that is best for the game in the long term however is the development of youth players from academies to first teams, not encouraging young players to be traded from side to side for "pure profit" and that's what the current rules are doing.

    I mean with Villa for example Tim Iroegbunam was a relatively highly rated young player but after Kamara got injured he still barely got a look in last year. Maybe if not for the whole PSR situation who could have had more time to develop as he is still 20/21 but Villa are now bringing in a young Argentinian from Juve who plays the same role/position so why not sell him to Everton for around 10m (which actually is a fair price for him given how highly rated he was/is but he just does not seem as if he will play). This will help hugely with the PSR issue given the whole pure profit thing. It does not feel right to be selling off a homegrown lad like this but it is 100% logical and in no way against any rule.



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 23,188 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bounty Hunter


    If you really want Forest to get in on the act they are also linked to a Villa youngster.

    Lamare Bogarde tipped to make the move across the midlands for around 4m euros.

    Winston's nephew, also a defender, been on loan to Bristol Rovers the past 2 seasons. Hadn't been expected to make the breakthrough at Villa but was rated and is still only 20.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,194 ✭✭✭ForestFire


    Just seen that, although not sure how much 4M (Or 3M profit) will help.

    Nobody really knows how much forest needs to make, 15M, 25M both mention, but also that we are okay!!

    We have Mangala going to Lyon France for 17M after his loan, but this may not happen till July 1st, or July 1st French time 00:01, and June 30th UK time 11:01pm😏

    The other quirk is that we may need to seel before June 30th, but the following day we have much more losses to work with and can start buying again!!(3 years Prem losses)

    Also wonder, who are Villa buying from Forest…Maybe Harry Arther….if he is still in the Canteen these days😒



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 3,552 ✭✭✭SuperTortoise


    And the way to stop all of the nonsense is to stop amortised fees.

    A ridiculous carry on, what's to stop villa and Chelsea buying each others entire playing staff and then reversing it the next day?

    Each club could then "book" a profit of several hundred million pounds, be no worse off financially, and then go out and spend 500m and still stay within the rules.



  • Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 58,128 Mod ✭✭✭✭Necro


    Yeah essentially this is the new "long term contract" loophole but multiple clubs are getting involved in order to avoid falling foul of PSR. To me it's just kicking the can down the road for these clubs though, especially Everton. The rules shouldn't be seen as something to get around they should be used as they were, assumingly, intended as a way to have a sustainable club that isn't running up 100s of millions of debt.

    And the fans lose again whatever the outcome either the club survives to fight another day and put the cost of their tickets up or they see their relegated.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,870 ✭✭✭Pauliedragon


    Have a wage cap and allow say 2 or 3 academy players exempt from the cap to encourage investment in youth systems.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,284 ✭✭✭pavb2


    Yes the clubs are effectively gambling on their future financial income improving. Off topic but it’s similar to what the some Banks were doing before they crashed, borrowing money to ensure their accounts looked healthy at the end of the financial year with a view to paying it back later. Maybe not illegal but certainly unethical.

    Really the problem lies with the PSR rules which allow the long term contracts etc

    Maybe the rules should be more specific to the individual club using Villa as an example spending is restricted but do the rules take into account the expected Champions League money.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,882 ✭✭✭✭Fitz*


    I said something similar a few months back.

    Have Academy players wages & Academy player transfer sales exempt from PSR calculations. It shifts the focus to clubs now having to develop their own players to keep, and reward them for that by allowing them to have the big wages. And it forces everyone to move away from the model of half developing academy players just to they can be sold for accounting purposes so that they can buy some random Brazilian instead.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,194 ✭✭✭ForestFire


    " expected Champions League money"

    Problem here is that the account close 30th June, so this money is irrelevant to the current term and even still its a gamble on money that may come in (Or only take acount of the minimum?). And if it was counted prior to July, it sits in last year's accounts and not next year's, i.e. you cannot use it in both years.

    Forest where not allowed to take account of the "Expected Johnson money" that came 5 weeks after the closing of accounts, and increased by 15M by waiting till the deadline and would have made us safe.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,284 ✭✭✭pavb2


    I know it’s a bit more complicated that’s why I suggested the rules should be specific to each club, the June date is completely arbitrary the reality is that Villa will get CL qualification money and Forest were due the money for Johnson.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,870 ✭✭✭Pauliedragon


    That's another thing that seems odd. Having the deadline in the middle of the transfer window makes no sense it encourages panic buying/ selling. Why isn't set at the end of the transfer window so all tranfers are over and all accounts make more sense on the books.



This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement