Financial Fair Play / Profit & Sustainability - New APT Rules Approved by Premier League

[madras]

11 hours ago, andycap said:

It stinks of the top six putting pressure on the Premier league. No one should be able to have that type of sway. 

No one should be able to have private interviews to vet a prospective head of the Premier league but hey ho.

 

https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/liverpool-man-utd-enrage-rivals-21470741

[LFEE]

9 hours ago, Colos Short and Curlies said:

I'd like to see a limit on the number of players you can have registered. If a player is not in the registered 25 (excluding academy products under the age of 21) then you have to take the full remaining value on the balance sheet and impair it, recognise the remaining contract value as an onerous contract (so recognise the full value immediately) and the player is available to move at any time for a transfer fee fixed at one years base salary (or remaining salary if less than 1 year) - and these moves can be at any point in the season.

 

This would be in conjunction with an overall spending cap rather than the current PSR rubbish.

 

You'd need to add clauses in for injuries but that will punish clubs for holding a bloated squad and allow players to move when they are not in squads.

Surely the easiest way to deal with everything is limit the amount of money a club can go into “debt”. If of course their main concern is the solvency and safety of clubs.

 

Its not a new point but you can’t get away from the irony that the likes of Man Utd, Spurs, Arsenal and Liverpool have the most debt.

[PauloGeordio]

Just now, LFEE said:

Surely the easiest way to deal with everything is limit the amount of money a club can go into “debt”. If of course their main concern is the solvency and safety of clubs.

 

Its not a new point but you can’t get away from the irony that the likes of Man Utd, Spurs, Arsenal and Liverpool have the most debt.

Absolutely this! and how they can prove to be able to manage the debt. Stopping a club spending money it has in the bank is just beyond clown world, unless…….

[Whitley mag]

5 minutes ago, LFEE said:

Surely the easiest way to deal with everything is limit the amount of money a club can go into “debt”. If of course their main concern is the solvency and safety of clubs.

 

Its not a new point but you can’t get away from the irony that the likes of Man Utd, Spurs, Arsenal and Liverpool have the most debt.

If the aim was to protect clubs going bust absolutely this, but of course we know this is not the motivation behind it as likes of Man U and Spurs would be fucked under these rules.

[The Prophet]

In today's Athletic:

 

"There could be some leeway, though. Provided a transfer has been signed off between two clubs, which constitutes a legally binding contract, ahead of midnight on June 30, a club would likely be able to include it in the previous year’s accounts even if it is concluded a day or two later.

 

It is the auditors, though, who judge that — not the Premier League. There’s a point at which a player has passed from one club to another because a transfer becomes irreversible. This does not mean the point at which a player’s registration is transferred.

 

Everton’s sale of Richarlison to Tottenham for £60million in summer 2022 illustrates that element of flexibility. The Brazilian’s move was not formally announced until July 1, but advanced talks on the previous day ensured Everton could record his sale in their 2021-22 accounts. They also included Ellis Simms’ £6million move to Coventry City of the Championship last year in their 2022-23 accounts, despite that transfer being concluded on July 7."

[Shays Given Tim Flowers]

Just let us spend enough to win a couple of things. Then we can fuck off for another 60 years but at least there will have been a point to it all.

[r0cafella]

1 minute ago, The Prophet said:

In today's Athletic:

 

"There could be some leeway, though. Provided a transfer has been signed off between two clubs, which constitutes a legally binding contract, ahead of midnight on June 30, a club would likely be able to include it in the previous year’s accounts even if it is concluded a day or two later.

 

It is the auditors, though, who judge that — not the Premier League. There’s a point at which a player has passed from one club to another because a transfer becomes irreversible. This does not mean the point at which a player’s registration is transferred.

 

Everton’s sale of Richarlison to Tottenham for £60million in summer 2022 illustrates that element of flexibility. The Brazilian’s move was not formally announced until July 1, but advanced talks on the previous day ensured Everton could record his sale in their 2021-22 accounts. They also included Ellis Simms’ £6million move to Coventry City of the Championship last year in their 2022-23 accounts, despite that transfer being concluded on July 7."

A little but not much and broad agreement needs to be in place before the deadline. 
 

Either way we cutting it fine haha

[r0cafella]

3 minutes ago, The Prophet said:

In today's Athletic:

 

"There could be some leeway, though. Provided a transfer has been signed off between two clubs, which constitutes a legally binding contract, ahead of midnight on June 30, a club would likely be able to include it in the previous year’s accounts even if it is concluded a day or two later.

 

It is the auditors, though, who judge that — not the Premier League. There’s a point at which a player has passed from one club to another because a transfer becomes irreversible. This does not mean the point at which a player’s registration is transferred.

 

Everton’s sale of Richarlison to Tottenham for £60million in summer 2022 illustrates that element of flexibility. The Brazilian’s move was not formally announced until July 1, but advanced talks on the previous day ensured Everton could record his sale in their 2021-22 accounts. They also included Ellis Simms’ £6million move to Coventry City of the Championship last year in their 2022-23 accounts, despite that transfer being concluded on July 7."

I spoke too soon, tap in merchant pushing the Minteh button again. 

[Dokko]

Hopefully when backed into a corner, we show our teeth. I'd rather we fucked off selling players to meet stupid deadlines, willing to accept pts deduction at worst, or, fight these cunts in court and close down the league. 

 

Either way, judt go out and buy whoever we want, go £100s of millions over and as wtf they going to do about it. We just sold a box to pif for £500m. 

[Colos Short and Curlies]

I can't see buying clubs locking into a legally binding obligation without a player going through a medical, terms agreed and the player contract signed. 

 

Auditors will be looking essentially at the point at which all future benefits and obligations transfer to the buying club for a sale to be recognised. Yes this could be the 30th June with the transfer actually happening on the 2nd July but you would need everything bar the transfer of final contracts to be in place. 

 

It's basically becoming a bigger farce every day where now we are making judgements on when a transfer actually takes place. Deadline day is pretty straight forward - paperwork has to be with the PL by the cut-off (unless you are Spurs), the 30th June should be the same

[madras]

1 minute ago, Colos Short and Curlies said:

I can't see buying clubs locking into a legally binding obligation without a player going through a medical, terms agreed and the player contract signed. 

 

Auditors will be looking essentially at the point at which all future benefits and obligations transfer to the buying club for a sale to be recognised. Yes this could be the 30th June with the transfer actually happening on the 2nd July but you would need everything bar the transfer of final contracts to be in place. 

 

It's basically becoming a bigger farce every day where now we are making judgements on when a transfer actually takes place. Deadline day is pretty straight forward - paperwork has to be with the PL by the cut-off (unless you are Spurs), the 30th June should be the same

They can and regularly do on transfer deadlines where the transfer is agreed before the deadline subject to medical.

 

 

Edited June 28 by madras

[Bally21]

Are we definitely in breach if we do not sell?

 

Any figures/estimates as to how much we would be in breach by?

 

I wouldn't have a clue if I am honest.

[Keegans Export]

2 minutes ago, Bally21 said:

Are we definitely in breach if we do not sell?

 

Any figures/estimates as to how much we would be in breach by?

 

I wouldn't have a clue if I am honest.

 

I don't think anybody really knows, outside the club at least.

 

The Athletic article on the PSR deadline says;

 

Quote

The transfer business of the past fortnight, with academy players bought and sold between clubs, would indicate Villa, Everton and Chelsea all had motivations to bring in funds ahead of June 30. Forest and Newcastle United are also open to sales.

 

"open to sales" is an interesting choice of phrase, it doesn't suggest a need to sell.

[r0cafella]

2 minutes ago, Keegans Export said:

 

I don't think anybody really knows, outside the club at least.

 

The Athletic article on the PSR deadline says;

 

 

"open to sales" is an interesting choice of phrase, it doesn't suggest a need to sell.

Chris Waugh amongst many others have said we need to sell. 

[Colos Short and Curlies]

8 minutes ago, madras said:

They can and regularly do on transfer deadlines where the transfer is agreed before the deadline subject to medical.

 

 

 

 

But thats not a legally binding sale until the medical concludes

[KaKa]

4 minutes ago, Keegans Export said:

 

I don't think anybody really knows, outside the club at least.

 

The Athletic article on the PSR deadline says;

 

 

"open to sales" is an interesting choice of phrase, it doesn't suggest a need to sell.

 

There's an article that just popped up from the Chronicle that also seems to indicate we aren't under pressure to the extent that has been reported.

[r0cafella]

For what it’s worth i imagine the club wanted to avoid doing anything in this narrow period of time as the euros and Copa America make it tricky. 
 

I think the plan was to parcel Miggy off in January but obviously that fell through as he wasn’t entertaining it. 

[PauloGeordio]

3 minutes ago, r0cafella said:

Chris Waugh amongst many others have said we need to sell. 

Does get more clicks mind as opposed to all is well. We’ll soon see. 

[r0cafella]

Just now, PauloGeordio said:

Does get more clicks mind as opposed to all is well. We’ll soon see. 

It does but I don’t think it’s something Waugh would outright lie about. 
 

Also the heavy losses since the takeover speak for themselves. 

[Keegans Export]

Just now, Colos Short and Curlies said:

 

But thats not a legally binding sale until the medical concludes

It could probably be used as mitigation in a PSR breach though?

 

Let's say Minteh to Lyon is all but agreed, £40m fee, wages etc. His medical is booked for Monday because he is away & he fails it, we miss the PSR target by £10m or so. Especially as a medical isn't really a "pass or fail" thing either, unless his leg is hanging off or he's missing a ventricle, it's a judgement call on the part of the buying club. We might think he's fine, the buying club may not.

[PauloGeordio]

4 minutes ago, r0cafella said:

It does but I don’t think it’s something Waugh would outright lie about. 
 

Also the heavy losses since the takeover speak for themselves. 

It is just their opinion, doubt the club would have told the journos. Not long to find out now mind 👍🏻

[Terraloon]

10 hours ago, Colos Short and Curlies said:

I'd like to see a limit on the number of players you can have registered. If a player is not in the registered 25 (excluding academy products under the age of 21) then you have to take the full remaining value on the balance sheet and impair it, recognise the remaining contract value as an onerous contract (so recognise the full value immediately) and the player is available to move at any time for a transfer fee fixed at one years base salary (or remaining salary if less than 1 year) - and these moves can be at any point in the season.

 

This would be in conjunction with an overall spending cap rather than the current PSR rubbish.

 

You'd need to add clauses in for injuries but that will punish clubs for holding a bloated squad and allow players to move when they are not in squads.

 Sorry but there are so many flaws with that suggestion

 

For instance what about players out for a season with say an ACL who won’t be included in the squad or maybe the fact that you don’t have to list under 21s in the 25 man squad? Or what about players on loan ? 
 

Then look at players being available what happens if they don’t want to move ?
 

The current system is quite simply wrong but as they say two wrongs and all that

[Terraloon]

21 minutes ago, Colos Short and Curlies said:

 

But thats not a legally binding sale until the medical concludes

Interesting enough it’s one of the reasons why pre contracts aren’t all they seem in that if a pre contract is agreed then even if there  is a subsequent medical issue that issue can not usurp the pre contract.

Also there actually isn’t any obligation for a buying club to have the player conduct a medical it is just that it makes good business sense to do one

 

 

Edited June 28 by Terraloon

[Colos Short and Curlies]

42 minutes ago, Terraloon said:

 Sorry but there are so many flaws with that suggestion

 

For instance what about players out for a season with say an ACL who won’t be included in the squad or maybe the fact that you don’t have to list under 21s in the 25 man squad? Or what about players on loan ? 
 

Then look at players being available what happens if they don’t want to move ?
 

The current system is quite simply wrong but as they say two wrongs and all that

 

Well of course players don't have to move, its more that the club cannot prevent them from doing so - bit like a release clause.

 

I addressed the injuries, you would need to make provision for them

 

With loans, if the player is over 21 then its tougher to argue its a developmental loan so I'd say that the loan is a legally binding contract so needs to be honoured but a club is free to enact the buying at contract value at the end of the loan

[Colos Short and Curlies]

42 minutes ago, Terraloon said:

Interesting enough it’s one of the reasons why pre contracts aren’t all they seem in that if a pre contract is agreed then even if there  is a subsequent medical issue that issue can not usurp the pre contract.

Also there actually isn’t any obligation for a buying club to have the player conduct a medical it is just that it makes good business sense to do one

 

 

 

 

There may not be an obligation, but if its a condition of an agreement between 2 parties it becomes an obligation for the transaction