FFP

[Risso]

More than that; because the accounts are audited, if a club agrees to pay a fee for a player, they have to pay that fee, so why would a club agree to pay more for a player then they value them at or are prepared to for them. It will show in the books. This is why it’s nonsense. And the PL ‘writing to remind’ is just horsesh*t and clearly acting under the instructions of some. It’s not as though this has been discussed at a meeting.

All an audit would show is the price paid for a player, and that that figure is paid. It wouldn't be an auditors job to conclude whether the price was paid was fair or not. How would somebody from PwC conclude whether Iroegbunam was worth £1m or £9m?

[LeonW]

More than that; because the accounts are audited, if a club agrees to pay a fee for a player, they have to pay that fee, so why would a club agree to pay more for a player then they value them at or are prepared to for them. It will show in the books. This is why it’s nonsense. And the PL ‘writing to remind’ is just horsesh*t and clearly acting under the instructions of some. It’s not as though this has been discussed at a meeting.

All an audit would show is the price paid for a player, and that that figure is paid. It wouldn't be an auditors job to conclude whether the price was paid was fair or not. How would somebody from PwC conclude whether Iroegbunam was worth £1m or £9m?

No, they wouldn’t comment of the fairness of a fee. But my point and focus is on whether the fee is paid. Chelsea or Villa wouldn’t agree to and pay more for players to beat a system. They will be paying for and on the hook for that fee which is why the arguments put forward are nonsense.

[LeonW]

The Premier League could be creating all sorts of shit for themselves if they pursue this beyond a letter reminding clubs of their responsibilities. They'd then have to go back and review every single transfer for the last ten plus years. Cole Palmer obviously had a great season at Chelsea, but prior to that he was a promising youth team player with a handful of first team appearances, but still went for £40m. Iroegbunam has a dozen appearances as a well, and has played for the various ages of England youth team players, and went for £9m.

Its just posturing, they know and everybody else knows that there is nothing they can do about it.
I think the PL is trying to warn clubs not to abuse the process.

More than that; because the accounts are audited, if a club agrees to pay a fee for a player, they have to pay that fee, so why would a club agree to pay more for a player then they value them at or are prepared to for them. It will show in the books. This is why it’s nonsense. And the PL ‘writing to remind’ is just horsesh*t and clearly acting under the instructions of some. It’s not as though this has been discussed at a meeting.

While I agree with the sentiment, what Juventus got done for a couple of years ago is exactly why there should be some semblence of control. However, nothing I see here or with other clubs looks remotely iffy.

I can’t remember too much of that. What happened again?

[ChicagoLion]

More than that; because the accounts are audited, if a club agrees to pay a fee for a player, they have to pay that fee, so why would a club agree to pay more for a player then they value them at or are prepared to for them. It will show in the books. This is why it’s nonsense. And the PL ‘writing to remind’ is just horsesh*t and clearly acting under the instructions of some. It’s not as though this has been discussed at a meeting.

All an audit would show is the price paid for a player, and that that figure is paid. It wouldn't be an auditors job to conclude whether the price was paid was fair or not. How would somebody from PwC conclude whether Iroegbunam was worth £1m or £9m?

No, they wouldn’t comment of the fairness of a fee. But my point and focus is on whether the fee is paid. Chelsea or Villa wouldn’t agree to and pay more for players to beat a system. They will be paying for and on the hook for that fee which is why the arguments put forward are nonsense.

How long have you been working for PWC?

[LeonW]

More than that; because the accounts are audited, if a club agrees to pay a fee for a player, they have to pay that fee, so why would a club agree to pay more for a player then they value them at or are prepared to for them. It will show in the books. This is why it’s nonsense. And the PL ‘writing to remind’ is just horsesh*t and clearly acting under the instructions of some. It’s not as though this has been discussed at a meeting.

All an audit would show is the price paid for a player, and that that figure is paid. It wouldn't be an auditors job to conclude whether the price was paid was fair or not. How would somebody from PwC conclude whether Iroegbunam was worth £1m or £9m?

No, they wouldn’t comment of the fairness of a fee. But my point and focus is on whether the fee is paid. Chelsea or Villa wouldn’t agree to and pay more for players to beat a system. They will be paying for and on the hook for that fee which is why the arguments put forward are nonsense.

How long have you been working for PWC?

Are they only auditing company recognized for auditing football finance?

[OCD]

The Premier League could be creating all sorts of shit for themselves if they pursue this beyond a letter reminding clubs of their responsibilities. They'd then have to go back and review every single transfer for the last ten plus years. Cole Palmer obviously had a great season at Chelsea, but prior to that he was a promising youth team player with a handful of first team appearances, but still went for £40m. Iroegbunam has a dozen appearances as a well, and has played for the various ages of England youth team players, and went for £9m.

Its just posturing, they know and everybody else knows that there is nothing they can do about it.
I think the PL is trying to warn clubs not to abuse the process.

More than that; because the accounts are audited, if a club agrees to pay a fee for a player, they have to pay that fee, so why would a club agree to pay more for a player then they value them at or are prepared to for them. It will show in the books. This is why it’s nonsense. And the PL ‘writing to remind’ is just horsesh*t and clearly acting under the instructions of some. It’s not as though this has been discussed at a meeting.

While I agree with the sentiment, what Juventus got done for a couple of years ago is exactly why there should be some semblence of control. However, nothing I see here or with other clubs looks remotely iffy.

I can’t remember too much of that. What happened again?

See https://www.forbes.com/sites/emmetgates/2021/11/27/juventus-being-under-investigation-by-italys-financial-police-should-come-as-a-surprise-to-no-one/

or

https://www.sportbible.com/football/news-the-swap-deal-involving-miralem-pjanic-and-arthur-melo-was-illegal-20211119

[LeeB]

The Premier League could be creating all sorts of shit for themselves if they pursue this beyond a letter reminding clubs of their responsibilities. They'd then have to go back and review every single transfer for the last ten plus years. Cole Palmer obviously had a great season at Chelsea, but prior to that he was a promising youth team player with a handful of first team appearances, but still went for £40m. Iroegbunam has a dozen appearances as a well, and has played for the various ages of England youth team players, and went for £9m.

Its just posturing, they know and everybody else knows that there is nothing they can do about it.
I think the PL is trying to warn clubs not to abuse the process.

More than that; because the accounts are audited, if a club agrees to pay a fee for a player, they have to pay that fee, so why would a club agree to pay more for a player then they value them at or are prepared to for them. It will show in the books. This is why it’s nonsense. And the PL ‘writing to remind’ is just horsesh*t and clearly acting under the instructions of some. It’s not as though this has been discussed at a meeting.

While I agree with the sentiment, what Juventus got done for a couple of years ago is exactly why there should be some semblence of control. However, nothing I see here or with other clubs looks remotely iffy.

I can’t remember too much of that. What happened again?

See https://www.forbes.com/sites/emmetgates/2021/11/27/juventus-being-under-investigation-by-italys-financial-police-should-come-as-a-surprise-to-no-one/

or

https://www.sportbible.com/football/news-the-swap-deal-involving-miralem-pjanic-and-arthur-melo-was-illegal-20211119

They were crazy inflations, and both players did absolutely jack shit afterwards.

[LeonW]

The Premier League could be creating all sorts of shit for themselves if they pursue this beyond a letter reminding clubs of their responsibilities. They'd then have to go back and review every single transfer for the last ten plus years. Cole Palmer obviously had a great season at Chelsea, but prior to that he was a promising youth team player with a handful of first team appearances, but still went for £40m. Iroegbunam has a dozen appearances as a well, and has played for the various ages of England youth team players, and went for £9m.

Its just posturing, they know and everybody else knows that there is nothing they can do about it.
I think the PL is trying to warn clubs not to abuse the process.

More than that; because the accounts are audited, if a club agrees to pay a fee for a player, they have to pay that fee, so why would a club agree to pay more for a player then they value them at or are prepared to for them. It will show in the books. This is why it’s nonsense. And the PL ‘writing to remind’ is just horsesh*t and clearly acting under the instructions of some. It’s not as though this has been discussed at a meeting.

While I agree with the sentiment, what Juventus got done for a couple of years ago is exactly why there should be some semblence of control. However, nothing I see here or with other clubs looks remotely iffy.

I can’t remember too much of that. What happened again?

See https://www.forbes.com/sites/emmetgates/2021/11/27/juventus-being-under-investigation-by-italys-financial-police-should-come-as-a-surprise-to-no-one/

or

https://www.sportbible.com/football/news-the-swap-deal-involving-miralem-pjanic-and-arthur-melo-was-illegal-20211119

Thank you. I see your point.

[Beard82]

I think this is all going to get very messy. 

The rules are stupid and meaningless as Man City has managed to avoid any kind of conclusion to their charges. The rules are clearly anti-competitive and stop investment. 

I don't see how anyone can claim any of these transfer fees are incorrect - as there are dozens of examples of similar fees for similar players.  The PL has lost all control of the PFA rules and needs to find a solution as these rules are meaningless with city charges remaining o/s.  These attempts to warn people against "managing" within the rules by structuring deals most advantageously is just ridiculous.  When you make football an accountancy exercise, accountants will do accountancy things.

I don't like what we're doing - but what choice do we have?  We haven't overspent - we have gone from the Championship to the Champions League in 5 years and rebuilt a complete squad.   

[eye digress]

All an audit would show is the price paid for a player, and that that figure is paid. It wouldn't be an auditors job to conclude whether the price was paid was fair or not. How would somebody from PwC conclude whether Iroegbunam was worth £1m or £9m?

Not sure I agree. The auditors would be required to gain an understanding of how assets (financial, tangible or intangible) on the books are measured by management. They would do this by reference to models containing historical market data along with other inputs.

They would also inspect the audit trail of any sale or purchase transactions during the period. If they suspect that transactions occurred at unreasonably inflated prices, they would be expected to at least draw the attention of users of the financial statements to that conclusion in their report.

For example, if we paid £10m for Dobbin but the auditors decided his value was one tenth of that because management's models were flawed, they would need to flag the assumptions used and the impact on the accounts in the event they were wrong.

All of this is moot, however, for several reasons.

First, it's hard to imagine that the auditors were not sounded out by management for any potential objections beforehand.

Second, the fees are not a million miles away from others in the recent past (Chuck is always the good example).

Third, there is I believe an argument to say that FFP has changed the market and pushed up the price of young players anyway. There are, after all, willing buyers and we all agree that youth products are "gold" in this new system, i.e., relatively more valuable than amortisable players.

Lastly, there is a caveat. The ultimate arbitration lies with the PL, which is not held to accounting standards, of course.

But could the PL reasonably, legally, object to valuations considered acceptable under accounting standards? That would be explosive indeed.

[eamonn]

Flynn-Downes? I'd rather stick with a Raleigh Chopper.

[ChicagoLion]

All an audit would show is the price paid for a player, and that that figure is paid. It wouldn't be an auditors job to conclude whether the price was paid was fair or not. How would somebody from PwC conclude whether Iroegbunam was worth £1m or £9m?

Not sure I agree. The auditors would be required to gain an understanding of how assets (financial, tangible or intangible) on the books are measured by management. They would do this by reference to models containing historical market data along with other inputs.

They would also inspect the audit trail of any sale or purchase transactions during the period. If they suspect that transactions occurred at unreasonably inflated prices, they would be expected to at least draw the attention of users of the financial statements to that conclusion in their report.

For example, if we paid £10m for Dobbin but the auditors decided his value was one tenth of that because management's models were flawed, they would need to flag the assumptions used and the impact on the accounts in the event they were wrong.

All of this is moot, however, for several reasons.

First, it's hard to imagine that the auditors were not sounded out by management for any potential objections beforehand.

Second, the fees are not a million miles away from others in the recent past (Chuck is always the good example).

Third, there is I believe an argument to say that FFP has changed the market and pushed up the price of young players anyway. There are, after all, willing buyers and we all agree that youth products are "gold" in this new system, i.e., relatively more valuable than amortisable players.

Lastly, there is a caveat. The ultimate arbitration lies with the PL, which is not held to accounting standards, of course.

But could the PL reasonably, legally, object to valuations considered acceptable under accounting standards? That would be explosive indeed.

That really is not the job of an Auditor and I think you are arguing with a Chartered Accountant.

[Toronto Villa]

Jim Radcliffe of Man U summarizing why the rules need to favour the top 6 clubs

https://x.com/caseysean51/status/1806980899591840060?s=46

[pablo_picasso]

Jim Radcliffe of Man U summarizing why the rules need to favour the top 6 clubs

https://x.com/caseysean51/status/1806980899591840060?s=46

What a monumental c***.

[PeterWithesShin]

What would he know about running a top 6 club?