The Great Big FFP Debate
- Thread starter Reuben klang
- Start date
Got any more hotels to sell to yourselves left ?
That's kind of the point, Anderson wasn't so we're in a better position to ask for more (than if he were in his last year).
I'm just saying if 50M for a bang average player in his last year is fine, how is 35M for similar not?
Says the Chelsea fan
I'm just saying that's the reason Mount was so cheap, although I can't see how that newcastle fella is worth 35
Soldato
I'm surprised we still have a kitchen sink with this lot, it's a truly shocking state of affairs.Got any more hotels to sell to yourselves left ?
Soldato
Of course, that was the fun in it.
He’s no worse than mount, so 15M less is a fair rate in this market. It’s not like the teams selling academy players who’ve never kicked a ball for a first team anywhere for 20+
Well Mount was an england International and for some reason highly rated, I've not see anything in the media about the other guy.
Soldato
Before his head was turned he was good for the blues, was worth the money but now has dropped like a brick.
- Joined
- 21 Sep 2020
- Posts
- 4,090
Mason Mount is an outliner though, he can be used as an example to why any player is ridiculously over priced. Even if he has the added bonus of being an England player.
Soldato
That can't be right or real?!?
I wouldn’t have though talkSPORT would have been able to broadcast it without it being factchecked first
Soldato
But that has to be illegal or against the rules to give one club a clear advantage over the rest?!?
Are you new to the premier league?
Soldato
Nope.
There's no evidence that other clubs haven't been allowed the same allowances as Utd. Nobody knows what Utd were claiming as covid losses in that period so we can't determine whether they're fair or not.
For example, and I'm wildly speculating here, Utd could have lost £xm from sponsors due to not being able to fulfil certain contractual obligations as a result of covid. I know for a fact that Liverpool had to massively change their pre-season plans for last summer, visiting Asia instead of the US, because they were contracted to do so the summer before last but were unable to during covid.
For example, and I'm wildly speculating here, Utd could have lost £xm from sponsors due to not being able to fulfil certain contractual obligations as a result of covid. I know for a fact that Liverpool had to massively change their pre-season plans for last summer, visiting Asia instead of the US, because they were contracted to do so the summer before last but were unable to during covid.
Swiss rambles take on it
It should be stressed that these are only estimates, as the figures for these deductions are not divulged in the accounts (except depreciation and goodwill amortisation), so super confident pronouncements on United’s PSR position by numerous football finance experts (and plagiarists) should be treated with a degree of caution.
So far, so good, but now it gets a little trickier, as United have also claimed £40m for COVID losses in 2021/22, which would have comfortably been the largest deduction in the Premier League that season.
After UEFA fined the club €300k for a “minor break-even deficit” for the monitoring period up to 2021/22, United explained, “This reflected a change in the way that UEFA adjusted for COVID-19 losses during the 2022 reporting period”, implying that the Premier League had in contrast allowed the £40m COVID loss.
I’ve also taken a bit of a punt on United being allowed to excluded the £34m exceptional charges linked to the share sale (but not the £6m for loss of office).
It is also possible that United have been able to exclude the FX impact on interest payable, though I have not considered that in my model.
Putting all those assumptions together, I reckon that United complied with PSR in 2023/24 by the skin of their teeth, as their £103m adjusted loss ended up being only £2m within the target.
It should be stressed that these are only estimates, as the figures for these deductions are not divulged in the accounts (except depreciation and goodwill amortisation), so super confident pronouncements on United’s PSR position by numerous football finance experts (and plagiarists) should be treated with a degree of caution.
So far, so good, but now it gets a little trickier, as United have also claimed £40m for COVID losses in 2021/22, which would have comfortably been the largest deduction in the Premier League that season.
After UEFA fined the club €300k for a “minor break-even deficit” for the monitoring period up to 2021/22, United explained, “This reflected a change in the way that UEFA adjusted for COVID-19 losses during the 2022 reporting period”, implying that the Premier League had in contrast allowed the £40m COVID loss.
I’ve also taken a bit of a punt on United being allowed to excluded the £34m exceptional charges linked to the share sale (but not the £6m for loss of office).
It is also possible that United have been able to exclude the FX impact on interest payable, though I have not considered that in my model.
Putting all those assumptions together, I reckon that United complied with PSR in 2023/24 by the skin of their teeth, as their £103m adjusted loss ended up being only £2m within the target.