FFP

[SaddVillan]

Talking of Chelsea, it’s interesting that we voted against closing the loophole that clubs can sell tangible assets (hotels, training grounds etc) to record as income on their accounts. Oh, and our side (us, Chelsea, seven others) won enough votes to stop it going through.

I was half-joking a few weeks ago when I asked ‘can’t we just sell Bodymoor Heath to ourselves?

An attempt by the Premier League to close a loophole that lets clubs use one-off profits from the sale of hotels, training grounds or other tangible assets in their financial fair play submissions has failed.

The league made the proposal at its annual general meeting in Harrogate, North Yorkshire on Thursday but only 11 of the 20 clubs backed it, significantly short of the two-third majority required for a change in English top flight’s profitability and sustainability rules (PSR).

This will allow us to do  some "jiggery-pokery" with either Bodymoor Heath, or the new Brookvale Academy site to get around FFP.

[kippaxvilla2]

So good it’s worth saying it twice.

[Dogtanian]

So good it’s worth saying it twice.

You can say that again!

[sid1964]

IF we have to sell player(s) by 30th June - how can we afford to buy Barkley for £5m?

[ozzjim]

We are buying him in July, with the deal likely to be less than £5m spread over the 3 years of his contract, so will show as about £1m a season on the books.

[algy]

IF we have to sell player(s) by 30th June - how can we afford to buy Barkley for £5m?

The article pretty much said that because we asked for a change to the PSR limit, there can't be any other explanation except we're in deep trouble.

Personally I'm relaxed about the whole situation. Maybe we're not spending £60m+ on players this summer, but I don't think we're in dire straits

[PaulWinch again]

We’re not in dire straits but we’re probably selling an important player.

[Dogtanian]

IF we have to sell player(s) by 30th June - how can we afford to buy Barkley for £5m?

The article pretty much said that because we asked for a change to the PSR limit, there can't be any other explanation except we're in deep trouble.

Personally I'm relaxed about the whole situation. Maybe we're not spending £60m+ on players this summer, but I don't think we're in dire straits

I remember back in January, the Athletic were on about the possible Duran sale would cover our FFP needs, but if we didn't sell we were confident of getting the money another way.

So I'm thinking we were only £20-30m or so out. Plus this was before we knew our finishing position and how far we progressed in europe, which will all have helped.

We may even have included an advanced payment from the new deals with Adidas and Betano.

I think wanting the extra £30m allowable loss would have been the case regardless of the FFP position this season as it will allow us to improve the squad next season anyway.

[VillaTim]

Selling 1 or 2 and refreshing things might not be such a bad thing. And in doing so if it balances the books even better.

[Gareth]

In all that sensationalist nonsense about clubs having to sell players before the end of June there is absolutely context around how much each club needs to generate…it’s speculation and guesswork at best to fill column inches.  So long as the right people at the club who have intimate sightings of the financial position know where we are at I am perfectly comfortable with it.

[Dogtanian]

In all that sensationalist nonsense about clubs having to sell players before the end of June there is absolutely context around how much each club needs to generate…it’s speculation and guesswork at best to fill column inches.  So long as the right people at the club who have intimate sightings of the financial position know where we are at I am perfectly comfortable with it.

And haven't we just appointed a finance and tax law guru to work all this out for us and find us the loopholes?

[LeeS]

In all that sensationalist nonsense about clubs having to sell players before the end of June there is absolutely context around how much each club needs to generate…it’s speculation and guesswork at best to fill column inches.  So long as the right people at the club who have intimate sightings of the financial position know where we are at I am perfectly comfortable with it.

And haven't we just appointed a finance and tax law guru to work all this out for us and find us the loopholes?

I bloody hope so.

[eamonn]

Does anyone know the PSR implications of Cameron Archer's return? i.e the pure £19m we made on him last summer - is that now eroded by re-signing him at a similar value over a 4 (?) year term, i.e just under £5m per season?

[eamonn]

But... It's not a scam if both clubs are actually targeting said players. We could probably produce chapter and verse on scouting Gallagher, and Chelsea were interested in Duran before we bought him in. As such, if we bought Gallagher for £50, they bought Duran for £40, everyone wins

You said you wouldn't sell Duran for anything less than £50m   To be fair, I'd be more than happy to get £40m for him. His career could go any which way, from ridiculous to sublime.

But I still have a hard time with a £50m valuation of Gallagher given he has one year to go on his contract and Chelsea are under pressure to make big sales this summer.

[Smithy]

Does anyone know the PSR implications of Cameron Archer's return? i.e the pure £19m we made on him last summer - is that now eroded by re-signing him at a similar value over a 4 (?) year term, i.e just under £5m per season?

We made a £19m profit on him last year, and we'll make an "approximate" £5m loss per year on him as long as he's our player after buying him back.  If he stays for the full length of his contract, it'll probably net out that we make almost nothing on him from FFP purposes, but the deal was done in such a way that we got all the profit this up front this season.

If we sell him again for roughly what we paid Sheff Utd, we won't have any losses on him for FFP, and he'll remain as a net £19m profit to us.