Harvey Elliott (signed on loan)

[Beard82]

If the need to pay for him (or at least have his value hit the books) when he hits 10 is true, then delaying those 10 into the next calendar year does appear to be the call being made.

I don’t think it’d work like that. We’d trigger a clause that would mean we’re obligated to sign him in June.

Yeah seems a pretty flawed idea otherwise.  Clearly we fancy him - as its in dones interest for him to be here but not only play 9 games

[Somniloquism]

If the need to pay for him (or at least have his value hit the books) when he hits 10 is true, then delaying those 10 into the next calendar year does appear to be the call being made.

I don’t think it’d work like that. We’d trigger a clause that would mean we’re obligated to sign him in June.

The initial potential issues was raised by the Athletic based on their interpretation of UEFA rules.

Uefa rules on loans with buy conditions are here.

The key point seems to be.

G.4.6
Loan of a player from the lender club to the new club with a conditional obligation to buy:

If a condition is considered to be virtually certain, then the player’s registration must be recognised by both clubs as a permanent transfer from the inception of the loan agreement.

If the fulfilment of a condition cannot be assessed with sufficient certainty to trigger the permanent transfer from the inception of the loan, then the player’s registration must be recognised first as a loan and then as a permanent transfer once the condition is met.

In theory, you would have thought the 10 game condition was virtually certain, but they do seem to indicate we have to register him as permanent once the condition has been met. Nothing about the finance side there though.

[Dave]

So why are non-conditional loans with an obligation to buy a thing then?

On here, and pretty much everywhere else I've seen it has always been assumed that it's because everyone wants the transfer to happen, but it's agreed to shunt the fee into the next financial window.

If that's not the case, because the transfer monies go on everyone's books as soon as it's confirmed that it's definitely happening...why do they exist rather than just a normal transfer?

[Somniloquism]

Those are UEFA rules, not necessarily domestic rules so it might be that most don't come under them. But how many obligations to buy are there. Most come under options to buy (pretty sure Raya was an option for example).

[Somniloquism]

I will also point out that if it is unconditional obligation, then UEFA treat that as a "bought now" and definitely affects finances. (Which I can understand really). As I stated, they don't have similar lines in the conditional obligations so potentially finances are not affected.

G.4.4
Loan of a player from the lender club to the new club with an unconditional obligation to buy:

The loan must be reflected by the lender club as a permanent transfer and the player’s registration rights must be derecognised from its intangible assets. The proceeds from the loan and from the future permanent transfer must be recognised from the inception of the loan agreement.

The directly attributable costs of the loan and the future permanent transfer for the new club must be recognised by the new club in accordance with the accounting requirements for permanent acquisition of a player’s registration.