Transfer Rumour John McGinn

[peterw]

They are different measures (70% squad cost vs profitability), and they have somewhat different components, but the player cost aspects are similar.

If you sell a player, the profit from that sale (sale price-remaining amortized fee) is profit for PSR and for SCR.

It's not just a simple matter of reducing wages. If you get a 10 million fee for McGinn, and save 6 million on his wages, that's 16 million gain for this year (his registration is fully amortized) for both PSR and SCR.

SCR is more stringent however, as the ratio equates to lower squad costs than what PSR eventually allows.

Its two different measures which you aren't quite right on.

Of course money coming in is important and PSR is something that will always be rearing its ugly head. However, where you're missing the point is one is sustainability on what you spend based on revenue, whereas the other is around the losses and what is permitted. As it stands we are not looking to sell any players because of FFP because we are compliant. However, where we aren't compliant is SCR. We could still but a £50m player, let's say, and be PSR compliant, but unless the cost of the squad is in line with revenue as mentioned we wouldn't be compliant. Our fine was for that and not PSR/FFP.

Transfer fees are also not counted in being compliant for SCR. Revenue for SCR primarily comes from Matchday income; Broadcasting revenue and
Commercial income (sponsorships, merchandise, etc). its also why you see Villa Par4k being used as a music venue over the summer. Why are new ground build has come with a music/entertainment venue for 3000 or so fans on matchday, but also to be used again as a music and boxing venue going forward.

However, to confuse the point and as mentioned above we could buy a player lets say for that £50M figure I mentioned, put him on a 5-year deal, and the £10M per year (amortised cost) counts toward your SCR limit.

To put it simply SCR controls squad spending as a percentage of income.
PSR limits total losses over a 3-year period.

 

[Zatara]

I'm quite disgusted with this link.

The player himself with his wholehearted attitude is positive.

31 in October so we'd be getting a player whose game is all about industry and effort...on the way down, no doubt for a £20mil+ fee and big wages.

This smells like a David Moyes West Ham signing.

"Elite players for an elite stadium" he said....yet were after McGinn?

 

[pfim]

Its two different measures which you aren't quite right on.

Of course money coming in is important and PSR is something that will always be rearing its ugly head. However, where you're missing the point is one is sustainability on what you spend based on revenue, whereas the other is around the losses and what is permitted. As it stands we are not looking to sell any players because of FFP because we are compliant. However, where we aren't compliant is SCR. We could still but a £50m player, let's say, and be PSR compliant, but unless the cost of the squad is in line with revenue as mentioned we wouldn't be compliant. Our fine was for that and not PSR/FFP.

Transfer fees are also not counted in being compliant for SCR. Revenue for SCR primarily comes from Matchday income; Broadcasting revenue and
Commercial income (sponsorships, merchandise, etc). its also why you see Villa Par4k being used as a music venue over the summer. Why are new ground build has come with a music/entertainment venue for 3000 or so fans on matchday, but also to be used again as a music and boxing venue going forward.

However, to confuse the point and as mentioned above we could buy a player lets say for that £50M figure I mentioned, put him on a 5-year deal, and the £10M per year (amortised cost) counts toward your SCR limit.

To put it simply SCR controls squad spending as a percentage of income.
PSR limits total losses over a 3-year period.

1. They are both adjusted profitability measures. Both remove some expenses from the equation, but they're both based on revenues and certain expenses. SCR presents this as a percentage, but it is still a measure of profitability (Squad Related Expenses/Revenue). Any measure, ratio or percentage of revenue, relating to expenses, is a profitability measure.

2. This is just false:

UEFA Squad Cost Control Ratio 2023

One Way Or Another

swissramble.substack.com

Squad Cost Ratio Calculation​

A club’s squad cost ratio is calculated as the sum of:

• Wages of players and head coaches
• Player amortisation and impairment
• Termination payments for players and head coaches
• Agents’ fees and cost of other intermediaries

Divided by the sum of:

• Operating revenue (adjusted for fair value, if required)
• Profit from player sales
• Other transfer income/expenses

UEFA’s new Cost Control Rule: a Salary Cap in all but name?

Is the long-debated salary cap now introduced in the UEFA’s new Financial Sustainability Regulations? How does the Cost Control requirement work and do clubs need to pay ‘luxury tax’? Check our latest blogpost to find out more on the topic.

www.linklaters.com

The relevant metric for the Cost Control rule is the squad cost ratio of the club. This ratio should not exceed 70% and is calculated as the proportion of:

(i) employee benefit expenses, amortisation/impairment of player (or head coach) registration costs and agents and intermediaries’ costs (the numerator); from

(ii) adjusted operating revenue and net profit/loss on disposal of player (or head coach) registration and other transfer income/expenses (the denominator).


No club would ever agree to count amortization as a cost and not count the sale of player registrations as a gain. That would be dumb.

 

[peterw]

They are not the same; however much you want them to be to fit your argument. here's a more updated article than your 2022 one:

Premier League's existing PSR set to be retained for 2025-26 season after concerns over Man City legal case and new football regulator

The Premier League's existing profitability and sustainability rules are set to be retained for next season following discussions between member clubs at a shareholders' meeting.

www.bbc.co.uk

The Premier League's existing profitability and sustainability (PSR) rules are poised to be retained for next season following discussions by its member clubs at a shareholders' meeting.

It had been anticipated that clubs would adopt a new financial model for the 2025-26 campaign, but there will now be a delay to its implementation.

The clubs did not formally vote on replacing PSR with the squad cost ratio (SCR) system of financial control - which is currently being trialled alongside top to bottom anchoring rules (TBA) - but were instead asked for their views.


The article is there just to show once more that PSR and SCR are different. You may need to just accept you're wrong on this one.

 

[peterw]

I'm quite disgusted with this link.

The player himself with his wholehearted attitude is positive.

31 in October so we'd be getting a player whose game is all about industry and effort...on the way down, no doubt for a £20mil+ fee and big wages.

This smells like a David Moyes West Ham signing.

"Elite players for an elite stadium" he said....yet were after McGinn?

He's on his way down but you don't think your 35 year-old midfielder is?

 

[9LeagueTitles5FACups]

He is not a bad player, yet I think there are better options available, most notably Douglas Luiz from Juventus. I would not be opposed to signing him, given his versatility and work rate, but I would rather us look at other players first.

 

[Goat]

I'm quite disgusted with this link.

The player himself with his wholehearted attitude is positive.

31 in October so we'd be getting a player whose game is all about industry and effort...on the way down, no doubt for a £20mil+ fee and big wages.

This smells like a David Moyes West Ham signing.

"Elite players for an elite stadium" he said....yet were after McGinn?

McGinn is a very good PL player.

And Moyes knew we were never signing elite players, its just a soundbite Zat, stop taking it literally.

 

[pfim]

They are not the same; however much you want them to be to fit your argument. here's a more updated article than your 2022 one:

Premier League's existing PSR set to be retained for 2025-26 season after concerns over Man City legal case and new football regulator

The Premier League's existing profitability and sustainability rules are set to be retained for next season following discussions between member clubs at a shareholders' meeting.

www.bbc.co.uk

The Premier League's existing profitability and sustainability (PSR) rules are poised to be retained for next season following discussions by its member clubs at a shareholders' meeting.

It had been anticipated that clubs would adopt a new financial model for the 2025-26 campaign, but there will now be a delay to its implementation.

The clubs did not formally vote on replacing PSR with the squad cost ratio (SCR) system of financial control - which is currently being trialled alongside top to bottom anchoring rules (TBA) - but were instead asked for their views.


The article is there just to show once more that PSR and SCR are different. You may need to just accept you're wrong on this one.

I did not say they were the same, I said they treat player costs similarly. I think I counted me typing "they are different" at least three times.

Your article doesn't mention the components of SCR. I'm actually not sure what point you're trying to make with that link.

If you sell a player, it is a gain/loss for both SCR and PSR. It's just a fact, whether you accept it or not.

 

[blueblue]

FC Sexy is so off

FC sexy never really worked out well for us ?

 

[Lanolin]

I did not say they were the same, I said they treat player costs similarly. I think I counted me typing "they are different" at least three times.

Your article doesn't mention the components of SCR. I'm actually not sure what point you're trying to make with that link.

If you sell a player, it is a gain/loss for both SCR and PSR. It's just a fact, whether you accept it or not.

You can't win this one mate, he's one of those incredibly annoying opposition fans who starts off being really head patty and pretending to be nice but very quickly descends into snide remarks and thinks Villa are a footballing superpower because they finished in the top half a couple of times in succession for the first time in living memory.

 

[pfim]

You can't win this one mate, he's one of those incredibly annoying opposition fans who starts off being really head patty and pretending to be nice but very quickly descends into snide remarks and thinks Villa are a footballing superpower because they finished in the top half a couple of times in succession for the first time in living memory.

Arguing over widely-accepted facts is just another Tuesday for us Americans.

 

[MikeH72]

John McGinn.

 

[OlDirtyBluenose]

No thank you, I want Douglas Luiz and/or Onyedika for our MF.

 

[Victus]

Reckon if he was called Jón Caralho from Lap Palmas, Zat would be all over it.

 

[DanB90]

Open up, put it in. John McGinn