it’s the relegation season I think, spending £140m or whatever it was to then have a drop in revenue.
I’m not entirely sure how it is all calculated but I did see somewhere that if you sell a player during their first contract (which FFP is calculated against) for a loss then it goes down as a loss rather than income.
So for example if we sell Onuachu for £7m instead of it showing as +7m in the books it would be -13m as we spent £20m on him. Doesn’t really make sense as surely it should be a -20m at time of purchase then +7m if he is sold, but none of the way it’s calculated seems logical to me
I suspect that is a big reason why Leeds went down the route last season of loaning out loads of players, rather than selling them. If they had sold them, they would have likely realised losses on many of them. In cash-terms that wasn't ideal, because they would have raised far more cash from transfer fees than loan fees. But whilst PSR continues to be profit-focused rather than cash-focused, it's understandable what they choose to do. (Even if, in the long run, it's arguably not the right thing to do - because those original transfer fees paid will ultimately become fully deducted either way, it's just when it happens.)
PS. In your example, our loss for Onuachu would be less than £13m because we will have already amortised some of the original fee. But I do agree with your overall point.