• ! ! ! IMPORTANT MESSAGE ! ! !

    Discussions about police investigations

    In light of recent developments about a player from Premier League being arrested and until there is an official announcement, ALL users should refrain from discussing or speculating about situations around personal off-pitch matters related to any Arsenal player. This is to protect you and the forum.

    Users who disregard this reminder will be issued warnings and their posts will get deleted from public.

Premier League Financial Regulations

TornadoTed

Established Member
I'm not sure that is will make much difference as so far I have only seen mention of it regarding wages.

I saw a real World example from the 2021-22 season where Norwich had the lowest income. With the multiplier the wage cap was £402m, during that season Manchester United had the highest wage bill in the league with £384m!
 

carter777

Thinks Poch Is The GOAT

Country: England

Player:Saka
Newcastle voted for, Villa against. Are these two not in similar boats right now r.e. bumping FFP limits and trying to spend with the top of the league?

Do these rules drastically impact either for better or worst?
 

Stevo the Villan

Established Member
Newcastle voted for, Villa against. Are these two not in similar boats right now r.e. bumping FFP limits and trying to spend with the top of the league?

Do these rules drastically impact either for better or worst?
I can't speak for Newcastle, but I can completely understand why Villa have voted against it.

Teams in European competitions can only spend 70% of their turnover, whilst teams not in Europe can spend 85%

We haven't caught up to other CL/Europa teams in terms of revenue so we'd essentially be penalised for qualifying for Europe because we'd be restricted to spending far less than those clubs. 70% of Sp**s' or Arsenal's or Man City's turnover is a hell of a lot more than 70% of Villa's at the moment

It sounds like yet another way to make it harder for clubs to break the "big 6"

Edit: to give it context, after this season I'd consider Sp**s a direct rival for us, in the short term at least. These rules would allow Sp**s to spend about £400m. it would restrict Villa to spending about £150m
 

TornadoTed

Established Member
Edit: to give it context, after this season I'd consider Sp**s a direct rival for us, in the short term at least. These rules would allow Sp**s to spend about £400m. it would restrict Villa to spending about £150m
How are those figures worked out? I thought it was a cap of x5 what the lowest earning team for everyone.
 

Stevo the Villan

Established Member
How are those figures worked out? I thought it was a cap of x5 what the lowest earning team for everyone.

I believe it’s alongside. So you could only spend 70% of your revenue as long as it’s below the threshold of x5 the lowest placed team’s TV revenue.

Lowest placed team in the prem gets about £100m in TV revenue. So my understanding is you can spend 70% of your turnover as long as that’s below £500m

But I’m not 100% sure to be honest so I’m happy to be corrected
 

TornadoTed

Established Member
I believe it’s alongside. So you could only spend 70% of your revenue as long as it’s below the threshold of x5 the lowest placed team’s TV revenue.

Lowest placed team in the prem gets about £100m in TV revenue. So my understanding is you can spend 70% of your turnover as long as that’s below £500m

But I’m not 100% sure to be honest so I’m happy to be corrected
Ah OK, that makes far more sense to be honest. I couldn't see how allowing say Luton to spend £500m on wages would be good for protecting clubs from overstretching themselves 😂

£500m is roughly 70% of £715m so this isn't really going to effect any of the top clubs as usual.
 

DuBB

Active Member

Country: England
Chelsea putting on aasterclass of selling players as usual

£22m for a free transfer in Hutchinson (who we let go a season or two ago)
£38m for Maatsen, academy player, cost £110k years ago

We really need to learn some lessons

Not to completely crap on your point, but they didn't get £38m for Maatsen.

The Maatsen/Kellyman merry-go-round transfer was a PSR play where both teams exchange a player each of them wanted from the other, and "paid" each other an amount that helped them with their books.

The real fee is in the actual money that changed hands:

£19m "booked" by Aston Villa for "selling" Kellyman to Chelsea
£38m "booked" by Chelsea for "selling" Maatsen to Villa

£19m to Chelsea (the difference between the 2 fees) is the only money that will eventually change hands

So when you take the £22m for Hutchinson, the £19m for Maatsen, it actually compares quite favourably to a deal we did only this last summer window - £25.7m for Balogun.

Should we do it more? Sure, hopefully we do. But lets not pretend that we're not beginning to do it...
 

db10_therza

🎵 Edu getting rickrolled 🎵
Trusted ⭐

Country: Bangladesh

Player:White
£19m "booked" by Aston Villa for "selling" Kellyman to Chelsea
£38m "booked" by Chelsea for "selling" Maatsen to Villa

£19m to Chelsea (the difference between the 2 fees) is the only money that will eventually change hands

So when you take the £22m for Hutchinson, the £19m for Maatsen, it actually compares quite favourably to a deal we did only this last summer window - £25.7m for Balogun.

This doesn’t make sense. Chelsea got Kellyman AND £19m for Maatsen.

I say this not knowing the first thing about Kellyman or what his fair value might be.

What a silly name though. Kelly-man.
 

DuBB

Active Member

Country: England
This doesn’t make sense. Chelsea got Kellyman AND £19m for Maatsen.

I say this not knowing the first thing about Kellyman or what his fair value might be.

What a silly name though. Kelly-man.

Kieran Maguire, a financial and law football author and consultant explained it pretty well on the Arsenal Vision podcast.

The point here isn't about what Kellyman's value is or Maatsen's value is, for that matter. At least one of those players (Kellyman) if not both of them are being used as pawns to help 2 teams come closer to complying with the PSR rules. So don't look at it as "Chelsea got Kellyman and £19m for Maatsen"

The main point of doing that specific transfer between those 2 specific clubs who are close to running afoul of the PSR rules is to beat the PSR system, and to make the profit/loss books look better - the players you exchange are almost secondary.

I have timestamped it so you can just press play and watch:



Which is why the Premier League put out their warning via the media yesterday:

 

db10_therza

🎵 Edu getting rickrolled 🎵
Trusted ⭐

Country: Bangladesh

Player:White
Kieran Maguire, a financial and law football author and consultant explained it pretty well on the Arsenal Vision podcast.

The point here isn't about what Kellyman's value is or Maatsen's value is, for that matter. At least one of those players (Kellyman) if not both of them are being used as pawns to help 2 teams come closer to complying with the PSR rules. So don't look at it as "Chelsea got Kellyman and £19m for Maatsen"

The main point of doing that specific transfer between those 2 specific clubs who are close to running afoul of the PSR rules is to beat the PSR system, and to make the profit/loss books look better - the players you exchange are almost secondary.

I have timestamped it so you can just press play and watch:



Which is why the Premier League put out their warning via the media yesterday:


I know this:
It’s not just that - the worry is that clubs are essentially colluding with each other to inflate the values of their pure profit academy players.

You’re the one that was looking at the numbers and comparing it against our own business.

I was just pointing out that you weren’t looking at the whole thing in the original post I quoted. You were right on one thing - the delta of £19m is the only relevant number, the inflated baseline not so much.

But that delta is the difference in valuation between Kellyman and Maatsen. You can’t just look at the difference and ignore Kellyman. That’s what didn’t make sense.
 

DuBB

Active Member

Country: England
I know this:


You’re the one that was looking at the numbers and comparing it against our own business.

I was just pointing out that you weren’t looking at the whole thing in the original post I quoted. You were right on one thing - the delta of £19m is the only relevant number, the inflated baseline not so much.

But that delta is the difference in valuation between Kellyman and Maatsen. You can’t just look at the difference and ignore Kellyman. That’s what didn’t make sense.

Yes, you're right.

It's difficult to try and make sense of the delta between the values of the two players, or the inflated fees, when the whole point of the exercise was to skirt financial rules.

You're right, even me trying to compare our "above board" sale to Monaco to the "PSR swap deal" values was probably misguided.

But the point I was trying to make with the person I was originally replying to was that our fans have a knack for comparing deals other clubs are making and completely ignoring (or forgetting) the deals we're doing.

He was talking about Maatsen and Hutchison being sold for profit as academy products and wishing we did that, without bringing up the fact that Balogun, Iwobi, Willock are similar deals of similar values, so in fact, we can, have, and probably will do that too again.

I then went a step convoluted far by bringing in the whole PSR stuff
 

db10_therza

🎵 Edu getting rickrolled 🎵
Trusted ⭐

Country: Bangladesh

Player:White
Yes, you're right.

It's difficult to try and make sense of the delta between the values of the two players, or the inflated fees, when the whole point of the exercise was to skirt financial rules.

You're right, even me trying to compare our "above board" sale to Monaco to the "PSR swap deal" values was probably misguided.

But the point I was trying to make with the person I was originally replying to was that our fans have a knack for comparing deals other clubs are making and completely ignoring (or forgetting) the deals we're doing.

He was talking about Maatsen and Hutchison being sold for profit as academy products and wishing we did that, without bringing up the fact that Balogun, Iwobi, Willock are similar deals of similar values, so in fact, we can, have, and probably will do that too again.

I then went a step convoluted far by bringing in the whole PSR stuff

I really hope the league for once pull their finger out and come down on them.

The whole world can see what they’re doing it’s ridiculous. Look at what the Italian clubs got when found guilty of collusion, and here we are years later just watching.
 

Let's play Aubamawang

Well-Known Member
Seeing Chelsea suddenly linked to Isak is deflating. With the sheer amount they've spent and no more 8/9 year amortisation for cooking the books, surely they can't afford another £150m+ on him?

Once again, Todd is making a mockery of the rules.
 

Stevo the Villan

Established Member
I don't really know why the Kellyman transfer is getting such scrutiny.

We've recently sold academy prospects such as Cameron Archer, Aaraon Ramsey (not that one) and Chukwumeka for similar fees and nobody batted an eyelid.

I guess because it's part of a swap deal? I dunno.

It seems a lot for an academy prospect but that seems to be the going rate for them these days. £20m isn't exactly a fortune in modern football transfers
 

Arsenal Quotes

Football is a bit like elections. Before it's unpredictable. After it's unexplainable... But there's an opportunity for us to make it unforgettable.

Arsène Wenger

2024 Summer Transfers Deadline

Daily Transfer Updates

Friday, July 19

Marseille would offer around £20m for Eddie Nketiah, but it’s likely that Arsenal would ask for more [Alan Nixon - The Sun]

West Ham are frontrunners to sign Reiss Nelson and a fee of £15m-20m could be enough to clinch a deal [Evening Standard]

Inter and Juventus have asked Arsenal about loaning Jakub Kiwior, but the club will only let him leave on a permanent transfer [Goal Poland]

Academy striker Chido Obi-Martin visited Manchester United’s training ground to discuss a move to the club [AcademyScoop]

Crystal Palace are preparing a £30m bid for Emile Smith Rowe [Ed Aarons - The Guardian]

Latest posts

Top Bottom