The PL is ****ed, it’s just when not if now that it collapses.
Financial, erm, Stuff
- Thread starter FadgewackeR
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
The PL is ****ed, it’s just when not if now that it collapses.
What’s odd though is that it’s just Chelsea doing all of this.
Thing is, are they paying some legal expert to actively find loopholes in the current rules before they get closed off - and prepared to fight EPL in court if required?
Or are they directly colluding with the EPL to agree what they can/can't do?
I understand the loopholes are that obvious the PL is powerless and can’t do **** in retrospect, and other PL clubs are reluctant to shut them down in case they each need to do their BS.
What gets me is and I mean no disrespect to women’s football but we, a fully established PL football where sold for 300m.
How are they this valued at 175m.
Secondly these deals simply shouldn’t be called as trading for the purposes of FFP.
Why Chelsea are the best club at player trading, and why they're not...
You must log in or register to see images
Last edited:
Player Impairment
Another less well-known element of player trading is player impairment. This is when a club assesses a player’s value as being less than the amount shown in the accounts, which means that it should book a once-off impairment charge.
This could be because a player suffers a career threatening injury or might be because the club considers that a player’s market value is lower, e.g. clubs often book impairment when they are relegated to the Championship, as they will be offered lower prices for members of their squad following the drop.
In such cases, any reduced value in the accounts would still be written-off over the remaining years of the contract, but the annual player amortisation will be lower.
It’s still relatively rare for clubs to book impairment, not least because it can be an indication of poor recruitment, but there have been some fairly high charges in recent years, partly driven by the impact of the COVID pandemic on the transfer market.
Again, the leader here (by some distance) is Chelsea, who have booked £95m impairment in the last five years, including £77m in 2022/23 alone. The next highest is Everton with £49m, then there is another large gap to Arsenal £26m and Leeds United £23m.
Another less well-known element of player trading is player impairment. This is when a club assesses a player’s value as being less than the amount shown in the accounts, which means that it should book a once-off impairment charge.
This could be because a player suffers a career threatening injury or might be because the club considers that a player’s market value is lower, e.g. clubs often book impairment when they are relegated to the Championship, as they will be offered lower prices for members of their squad following the drop.
In such cases, any reduced value in the accounts would still be written-off over the remaining years of the contract, but the annual player amortisation will be lower.
It’s still relatively rare for clubs to book impairment, not least because it can be an indication of poor recruitment, but there have been some fairly high charges in recent years, partly driven by the impact of the COVID pandemic on the transfer market.
Again, the leader here (by some distance) is Chelsea, who have booked £95m impairment in the last five years, including £77m in 2022/23 alone. The next highest is Everton with £49m, then there is another large gap to Arsenal £26m and Leeds United £23m.
You must log in or register to see images
The big clubs are like parasites that are growing larger and larger while their hosts inhibit the other wannabe parasites.
Player Trading
Net player trading in the accounts covers more than profit from player sales, as it also includes player loans, amortisation and impairment.
As a result of this calculation, some clubs are net sellers, mainly because profit from player sales is higher than player amortisation, leading to a positive balance in overall player trading.
On the other hand, when clubs are investing more to improve the quality of their squad, the balance will be negative, i.e. player amortisation is higher than the profit from player sales.
Net player trading in the accounts covers more than profit from player sales, as it also includes player loans, amortisation and impairment.
You must log in or register to see images
As a result of this calculation, some clubs are net sellers, mainly because profit from player sales is higher than player amortisation, leading to a positive balance in overall player trading.
On the other hand, when clubs are investing more to improve the quality of their squad, the balance will be negative, i.e. player amortisation is higher than the profit from player sales.
Net Player Trading
Putting all these elements together, we get a very different picture for player trading to profit on player sales, as only four clubs in our review end up with a positive balance, while many of them have enormous negatives.
The four profitable clubs are Bristol City £34m, Swansea City £25m, Brentford £21m and Watford £12m.
In total, the 25 clubs in our analysis have made £3.3bn profit from player sales in the last five years, which was boosted by £39m player loans, but they then charged £7.4bn player amortisation and £349m player impairment, giving a negative player trading balance of £4.4bn.
Putting all these elements together, we get a very different picture for player trading to profit on player sales, as only four clubs in our review end up with a positive balance, while many of them have enormous negatives.
The four profitable clubs are Bristol City £34m, Swansea City £25m, Brentford £21m and Watford £12m.
In total, the 25 clubs in our analysis have made £3.3bn profit from player sales in the last five years, which was boosted by £39m player loans, but they then charged £7.4bn player amortisation and £349m player impairment, giving a negative player trading balance of £4.4bn.
You must log in or register to see images
There are some very clear observations that can be made:
- Championship clubs tend to do better at player trading overall, even if they don’t make so much from player sales, because of much lower player amortisation than the leading clubs. This is pretty much out of necessity, as they lose a lot of money at the operating level.
- In contrast Premier League clubs don’t have to focus so much on player trading, thanks to the very lucrative broadcasting deal in the top flight. In fact, many clubs will actively try to retain their top talent, rather than cashing in via transfers, to give themselves the best chance of survival.
- The clubs with the highest negative balances for player trading are actually the Big Six, again because they generate the most recurring revenue, so they don0t have to. Over the last five years, these losses are enormous, e.g. Manchester United £594m, Chelsea £498m and Arsenal £474m.
- In other words, Chelsea are the best in England at player trading when looking only at player sales, but the second worst when the full picture is considered.
- The best performing club in the Premier League is Brentford, even though their player sales have fallen significantly after promotion from the Championship.
- Of the clubs that have been in the Premier League for all five of the seasons under review, Brighton are the best performers, sitting in 7th place with a negative balance of just £26m.
Is there anything they won't try to get an advantage?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/c51ynrngl71o
And this has nothing to do with the 150+ charges already reported for financial breaches.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/c51ynrngl71o
And this has nothing to do with the 150+ charges already reported for financial breaches.
I chopped quite a lot of other supporting information out here, as there was a LOT, but - on paper, for PSR calc, Chelsea trade well - the reality is that they lose a lot of money doing it. It's backward.
Conclusion
Coming back to “pure” player trading, we can see that the widely reported profits on player sales that clubs are making are far from the whole story. In fact, it is entirely possible for a club to be extremely good at making money in this way, but still have a negative balance overall, due to the cost of cumulative player amortisation.
The clearest example here is Chelsea, who have consistently reported the highest player sales profits in England, but paradoxically also have the highest losses from overall player trading.
As always with football finance, taking a selective example might show a club in a good light, but it’s always best to take a broader view to better understand the full situation.
Conclusion
Coming back to “pure” player trading, we can see that the widely reported profits on player sales that clubs are making are far from the whole story. In fact, it is entirely possible for a club to be extremely good at making money in this way, but still have a negative balance overall, due to the cost of cumulative player amortisation.
The clearest example here is Chelsea, who have consistently reported the highest player sales profits in England, but paradoxically also have the highest losses from overall player trading.
As always with football finance, taking a selective example might show a club in a good light, but it’s always best to take a broader view to better understand the full situation.
It's really not clear Trev... Probably.
Excellent report on Transfer dealings by Swiss Ramble out today - this one isn't for subscribers only. We've spent peanuts really. Chelsea are just a joke.
https://swissramble.substack.com/p/transfers-summer-2024
https://swissramble.substack.com/p/transfers-summer-2024
