| I see we are subsidising Goztepe again. 12:20 - Aug 25 with 1615 views | GRIM |
Apparently the deal involving Charlie Alcarez leaving for 15M includes the lad Hugo coming in & going straight to Goztepe.
I just don't understand what's going on now with our transfer dealings, we could have got more ££'s for Charlie if Hugo hadn't
been involved.
Why are we wasting time bringing in players for our so called sister club, what do they do for us ?.
We don't have the finances to subsidise another club, every penny we have should be invested in players to improve our squad.
|  | | |  |
| I see we are subsidising Goztepe again. on 12:33 - Aug 25 with 1559 views | PatfromPoole |
It’s basically a Financial Fair Play ruse. |  |
| |
| I see we are subsidising Goztepe again. on 12:39 - Aug 25 with 1544 views | Ifonly |
Don't worry, the plan is that when Sports Republic have used our money to build Goztepe into a top flight team, it will then be Goztepe who will buy young players and loan them to us at a discount. We will be told to use them in our League 1 campaigns. | | | |
| I see we are subsidising Goztepe again. on 13:09 - Aug 25 with 1488 views | GRIM |
| I see we are subsidising Goztepe again. on 12:33 - Aug 25 by PatfromPoole |
It’s basically a Financial Fair Play ruse. |
I don't understand all the complexities of FFP.
Not sure that all of the clubs owners + officials & Managers do either, that's why they are in breach of the rules & picking up the penalty of points deductions. | | | |
| I see we are subsidising Goztepe again. on 13:37 - Aug 25 with 1438 views | PatfromPoole |
| I see we are subsidising Goztepe again. on 13:09 - Aug 25 by GRIM |
I don't understand all the complexities of FFP.
Not sure that all of the clubs owners + officials & Managers do either, that's why they are in breach of the rules & picking up the penalty of points deductions. |
It seems that it is just as important to have a decent accountant than a decent striker nowadays.
We had best hope that our accountants are no worse than our strike force….. | |
| |
| I see we are subsidising Goztepe again. on 13:48 - Aug 25 with 1376 views | Ifonly |
| I see we are subsidising Goztepe again. on 13:37 - Aug 25 by PatfromPoole |
It seems that it is just as important to have a decent accountant than a decent striker nowadays.
We had best hope that our accountants are no worse than our strike force….. |
Do you really think this is FFP and do you think the benefit is for us or Goztepe? I can see that Goztepe benefit because the transfer fee isn't on their books and they only pay wages at subsidised rates. So, if this is to hide costs from Goztepe's books, then I can see that. It's very hard to see any benefit the other way. In this case, we fail to see all the revenue we should see from selling Charly, so this makes our FFP (or whatever it's called now) situation worse doesn't it? | | | |
| I see we are subsidising Goztepe again. on 13:52 - Aug 25 with 1361 views | dirk_doone |
| I see we are subsidising Goztepe again. on 12:33 - Aug 25 by PatfromPoole |
It’s basically a Financial Fair Play ruse. |
It's certainly not a good deal from a normal football transfer perspective. Hugo's only made a few sub appearances for Flamengo. On the open transfer market, he wouldn't fetch more than £5 mill. Alcaraz is worth at least 3 times that. [Post edited 26 Aug 10:40]
|  |
| |
| I see we are subsidising Goztepe again. on 13:55 - Aug 25 with 1332 views | PatfromPoole |
| I see we are subsidising Goztepe again. on 13:48 - Aug 25 by Ifonly |
Do you really think this is FFP and do you think the benefit is for us or Goztepe? I can see that Goztepe benefit because the transfer fee isn't on their books and they only pay wages at subsidised rates. So, if this is to hide costs from Goztepe's books, then I can see that. It's very hard to see any benefit the other way. In this case, we fail to see all the revenue we should see from selling Charly, so this makes our FFP (or whatever it's called now) situation worse doesn't it? |
I think that you have to look at each individual year in isolation.
We record all of the profit from the Alcaraz sale in this year.
That is recorded separately from the deemed “transfer fee” for Hugo, which will be allocated over the duration of his contract.
In the meantime Hugo gets a work permit from playing in the schmuck League.
I think this will also be why the Feyenoord keeper was a better deal than Ramsdale from a PSR rules perspective.
With Ramsdale, the whole cost (£10m including loan fee and wages??) would have gone into this year.
Whereas the Feyenoord keeper deal seems to be an initial appearances-based loan, then a £7 million fee written off over (probably) 4 years.
It is all a bit smoke and mirrors, f’sure….. | |
| |
| I see we are subsidising Goztepe again. on 14:20 - Aug 25 with 1292 views | Ifonly |
| I see we are subsidising Goztepe again. on 13:55 - Aug 25 by PatfromPoole |
I think that you have to look at each individual year in isolation.
We record all of the profit from the Alcaraz sale in this year.
That is recorded separately from the deemed “transfer fee” for Hugo, which will be allocated over the duration of his contract.
In the meantime Hugo gets a work permit from playing in the schmuck League.
I think this will also be why the Feyenoord keeper was a better deal than Ramsdale from a PSR rules perspective.
With Ramsdale, the whole cost (£10m including loan fee and wages??) would have gone into this year.
Whereas the Feyenoord keeper deal seems to be an initial appearances-based loan, then a £7 million fee written off over (probably) 4 years.
It is all a bit smoke and mirrors, f’sure….. |
I see, thanks. In that case it either means that we have headroom in our PSR accounts for future years (which would be good news) or it means that they're desperate for any ruse to fill a big fvckin hole in this year's accounts (which seems more likely).
Even so, it would still be the case that our PSR accounts for this year (and future years) would be better if we didn't take Hugo at all. So, it seems that we're going to quite some trouble and cost to get a work permit for another unproven youngster who is, history shows, unlikely to contribute to us, but probably will benefit Goztepe in a weaker league. Or so it seems to me... | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| I see we are subsidising Goztepe again. on 14:26 - Aug 25 with 1284 views | PatfromPoole |
| I see we are subsidising Goztepe again. on 14:20 - Aug 25 by Ifonly |
I see, thanks. In that case it either means that we have headroom in our PSR accounts for future years (which would be good news) or it means that they're desperate for any ruse to fill a big fvckin hole in this year's accounts (which seems more likely).
Even so, it would still be the case that our PSR accounts for this year (and future years) would be better if we didn't take Hugo at all. So, it seems that we're going to quite some trouble and cost to get a work permit for another unproven youngster who is, history shows, unlikely to contribute to us, but probably will benefit Goztepe in a weaker league. Or so it seems to me... |
Our big problem was two seasons ago, when we lost a sh1tload.
PSR rules are based on a 3-year period of trading, you basically need to lose no more than £105 million (in an accounting profit sense, not cash).
Though that figure is reduced if you spent part of that 3-year period in the Championship.
Definitely makes it more difficult to stay up if you have done a yo-yo over the last 2 years like us…..
https://talksport.com/football/1942521/premier-league-psr-deadline-meaning-trans | |
| |
| I see we are subsidising Goztepe again. on 14:30 - Aug 25 with 1276 views | PatfromPoole |
These rules seem to be the main reason why the Prem is no longer the go-to League for the world’s top players.
Put simply, if clubs adhere to the rules, they can no longer afford to sign these players. | |
| |
| I see we are subsidising Goztepe again. on 14:54 - Aug 25 with 1242 views | Ifonly |
| I see we are subsidising Goztepe again. on 14:30 - Aug 25 by PatfromPoole |
These rules seem to be the main reason why the Prem is no longer the go-to League for the world’s top players.
Put simply, if clubs adhere to the rules, they can no longer afford to sign these players. |
"Though that figure is reduced..."
Yes, I understand that our limit is £85m, same as Leicester.
I see that in June, the Prem clubs agreed to introduce new rules on a "trial" basis:
https://www.givemesport.com/premier-league-psr-reforms-explained/
These rules seem to be a drastic cutting back from existing PSR rules. Clubs playing in Europe could only spend 70% of revenue on their squad costs (wages, amortised txfrs, agents fees) by the 25/26 season - and this applies to each year. This seems a helluva long way from being allowed to lose £105m over 3 years.
If that's right, the Prem really wouldn't be the go-to league but neither would anywhere in Europe. All the top players would be in Saudi. | | | |
| I see we are subsidising Goztepe again. on 15:02 - Aug 25 with 1224 views | PatfromPoole |
| I see we are subsidising Goztepe again. on 14:54 - Aug 25 by Ifonly |
"Though that figure is reduced..."
Yes, I understand that our limit is £85m, same as Leicester.
I see that in June, the Prem clubs agreed to introduce new rules on a "trial" basis:
https://www.givemesport.com/premier-league-psr-reforms-explained/
These rules seem to be a drastic cutting back from existing PSR rules. Clubs playing in Europe could only spend 70% of revenue on their squad costs (wages, amortised txfrs, agents fees) by the 25/26 season - and this applies to each year. This seems a helluva long way from being allowed to lose £105m over 3 years.
If that's right, the Prem really wouldn't be the go-to league but neither would anywhere in Europe. All the top players would be in Saudi. |
Chelsea thought they had got round all this by signing players on nine-year contracts, such as Lavia.
That would ordinarily mean that they could allocate the transfer fee over a 9-year period (“amortisation”), reducing their loss per year.
Somewhat comically, the Prem voted last year to reduce the maximum period of allocating a transfer fee down to 5 years.
Pissing on Chelsea’s chips quite considerably….. | |
| |
| I see we are subsidising Goztepe again. on 17:16 - Aug 25 with 1121 views | saintsfanbrock |
I think we have all missed the point. I thought when SR bought us we were to be the crown jewel in their little group. I fear instead we were just brought into be leached off.
Goztepe are worth €18mil now, not sure how much SR bought them for (details don’t seem to be online) but I imagine a lot less given that apart from three teams in the second team division nobody is worth more than €8mil. We of course are worth €270mil (SR with of course €216mil of that). But I think the big difference is how easy it would be to make Goztepe double in value again compared to Saints. To do so they probably just need to finish in the top four, well having a look at the team that finished fourth last year the value of the players don’t look far off what we are loaning Goztepe. https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/istanbul-basaksehir-fk/marktwertanalyse/verein/6
So looks like the SR model isn’t for improving all the teams, it’s about buying a PL team, letting it stay where it is (which is still nice and profitable) and then push on with the other teams in the group artificially using the PL team’s finances where it will not be noticed that much. | | | |
| I see we are subsidising Goztepe again. on 18:02 - Aug 25 with 1059 views | Ifonly |
| I see we are subsidising Goztepe again. on 17:16 - Aug 25 by saintsfanbrock |
I think we have all missed the point. I thought when SR bought us we were to be the crown jewel in their little group. I fear instead we were just brought into be leached off.
Goztepe are worth €18mil now, not sure how much SR bought them for (details don’t seem to be online) but I imagine a lot less given that apart from three teams in the second team division nobody is worth more than €8mil. We of course are worth €270mil (SR with of course €216mil of that). But I think the big difference is how easy it would be to make Goztepe double in value again compared to Saints. To do so they probably just need to finish in the top four, well having a look at the team that finished fourth last year the value of the players don’t look far off what we are loaning Goztepe. https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/istanbul-basaksehir-fk/marktwertanalyse/verein/6
So looks like the SR model isn’t for improving all the teams, it’s about buying a PL team, letting it stay where it is (which is still nice and profitable) and then push on with the other teams in the group artificially using the PL team’s finances where it will not be noticed that much. |
You may well be right, but hopefully SR understand that their model depends on the value of Saints. Even a 10% fall in the value of Saints wipes out any gains they may make on the other clubs. On the other hand, if they used the other clubs purely to develop talent for Saints and so engineer a 10% increase in the value of Saints... | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
