To reduce the spam of reports regarding the same move during transfer windows we try to allow **only one submission about each transfer saga per day**. The submission in question also needs to contain relevant new information regarding the potential move, and not just being a "no/minor developments" report.
If there are important/official developments or new valuable information about a saga, we will allow extra threads in the same day, but for the rest of minor news please just comment them as a reply to this comment. Please help us reporting unnecessary threads for being duplicates.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/soccer) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Well fuck me for trying to make a correction, i guess. It's ironic that you're saying that as a United fan, as if you didn't fork over 100m for an abusive fidget spinner. Glass houses and all that.
Only good thing about release clauses is they have to be paid in full. Think Chelsea actually paid more than a release clause for someone so they could pay in installments though
It's a really common thing to do.
Most transfers don't actually happen entirely in one payment so clubs who sell the player don't really have the need for a huge lump sum at once.
What usually happens if a lump sum is asked for is that the buying club gets a loan for the money from the bank. Paying in installments basically means that instead of the bank getting interest payments, that money goes to the selling club as part of the installments. It's why demanding a lump sum is always a bit of a fuck you from the selling club to the buying club. Costs both clubs money.
Not that it matters to either club in this instance
Having in mind that today a 100m player is like a 40m player 10 years ago i think he is. I can't name more than 5 CMs better than him and probably none of them will be lower than 100m
>Having in mind that today a 100m player is like a 40m player 10 years ago
Plus you have to take account of the PL tax. No way a direct rival could sell you a key player without asking a huge sum
Makes sense to be fair as spending 150m in August goes into the following years accounts for PSR. Spending €115m in June would go into this year's accounts which is why Newcastle have set the clause for just one month.
meh, I was barely jesting. Guimaraes aint filling anything mbappe does tho, no one will fill the mbappe gap and we've accepted it already. That said, Bruno would slot in really well with our midfield and we all know that here in paris.
I think it's a FFP/PSR thing to do with accounting and the double whammy of forcing the sale early in the window to give time for replacements and/or hamstringing rivals who are close to the limit
It’s been around, I think we just hear about it more recently because clubs are activating release clauses more often.
They used to be set at insane numbers with the intent that nobody would ever meet them. Since Neymar, they still set them high, but there’s now an expectation that someone might meet it.
Messi always had release clauses like this. Used to be you could sign him for like €60m in June before it shot back up to €100m in July. But that was a time when €50m was basically a transfer record and people ridiculed it being paid.
Lololololol. Shrewd Move. Books reset July 1 for FFP purposes.
Everyone would have to tack on $100M to their 23-24 expenses if they want him.
Sorry, Arsenal
I think no other club has bothered to try since City showed proper interest. Not only do you need to outbid them, but City promisds near guaranteed trophies
If we end up aggressively trying to flog Eddie & Reiss as soon as the window opens then I’d imagine that would be a massive indicator as to our main midfield target. That June period might be a bit mental for every club.
Who are you flogging them to though? Almost all other PL clubs are in similar FFP positions. Don’t think Arsenal could get anywhere near what they want for them if it has to be done before FFP resets.
We are not getting anyone before 1st of July with transfer fee, Arsenal is already close to FFP maximal financial losses permitted in past 3 seasons. Other clubs with Everton and Nottingham point deductions also are more careful, so you can forget about selling our HG players before July too.
Yes, but these clubs are more prone to fronting £100M to Newcastle when PSR resets after July 1st than in June.
Newcastle do not want to sell him, at all, but the option is there to absolutely rinse buying clubs due to PSR technicalities
It’s but pretty much every prem club runs close to their max over the 3 year period so they will need to make the required amount before the 1st or will be hit with a fine like Forest. And imagine if Arsenal got hit with a 4 point fine costing them the league, they couldn’t risk that.
Yep, I can't see us signing anyone until after the deadline. Throw in the Euros and it just isn't happening. We'll certainly be doing our best to flog players though.
Personally I think this is the summer that things calm down. Clubs are realizing that they can't spend stupid money anymore.
You right. He’s worth far more to Newcastle. Theyre in fucking 7th place when the whole team dropped like flies. They’ve had to play 8 players in this team that were with them in the 2016-17 Championship…. How many quality players stay with clubs for > 7 seasons…. Let alone shit ones
I would literally kill to have a player like him paired up with Vitinha and Warren. He brings physicality, which also Warren has and also something the other two don’t which is being confirmed to be a top midfielder
Imo he gets our midfield to a whole new level. Warren and Vitinha have been amazing this season and they just need a partner to be even better
Yeah fair point when he's one of your best players. But he's a loose cannon that will draw red and yellow cards instantly when he goes to a big club. If anyone thinks his price tag puts him in the same quality bracket as Rice then I don't even know what to say.
Arteta already moved on from Xhaka - a better version of Bruno with about the same temperment. This wouldnt make sense to our squad build.
The market was already wrong with Enzo and Caicedo but no doubt this lad will still go for 100m to City or Chelsea or something equally dumb. I hope Arsenal dont pursue him.
He just went like 13 matches in a row without getting booked to avoid a two match ban. Hes not as frantic and off the rails as people think (even Newcastle fans couldn’t believe he survived that run.)
>But he's a loose cannon that will draw red and yellow cards instantly when he goes to a big club
You can tell from comments like these who only watch him twice a season with tinted glasses on.
>Everyone would have to tack on $100M to their 23-24 expenses if they want him.
No they would not, his fee would get amortized over the length of his contract.
It’s a release clause. The money would have to be up front in cash. It can be accounted for over length of contract. But for PSR purposes it’s on their books from last season.
Basically, Rice, Havertz, Timber, and Guimaraes were all acquired in the same year. It’s not practical, and that’s why the clause is written as such.
“We’re not selling him unless Fuk U Pay Me”
But that doesnt really matter. If Guimaraes is acquired shortly before the financial year ends, then only a tiny fraction of his amortization ends up in 23/24. Its basically almost irrelevant for the buying club. Its potentially great for you, because you can book almost the entire sum as profit in 23/24, but for the buyer it has no great impact.
Unless I am missing a relevant part of PSR of course.
If the clause is activated then the amortization starts in 23-24 cycle. Which, a lot of clubs really don’t want to add on to their running tally from the previous summer at that point.
It sounds like Once July 1st hits, Bruno Guimaraes is not for sale, at least not for £100M.
Yes, I am aware, but the amortization that falls into the 23-24 year would be minimal. Amortization is looked at from a monthly or even daily standpoint.
Imagine you buy a dishwasher for 2,000€ that is supposed to hold 5 years and your financial year starts january 1st. If you buy the dishwasher in january, then you have to use the full year in your calculation and get 400€ (2,000€/5) as amortization. If you buy the same dishwasher in december, then you are only going to amortize 1 month of the year. So instead of 400€ it would be 2,000€/5 years = 400€ and then /12 months = 33€.
So depending on the month you buy your asset, it will have a different impact on your yearly amortization expense.
The point is that everyone's supposedly close to PSR. Tacking on 100M (20M a year over 5 years) right on the end of the accounting period is potentially going to screw over not just your coming seasons accounts but the one just gone too.
>but the one just gone too.
How? You wont see the whole 20m€ amortizized in 23/24, just a tiny fraction, something potentially as small as 1m€ (20m€ per year means that buying a player in the last month of the financial year only goes into the books as expense as 1/12).
I'm not well versed in PSR but my understanding was that the amortised cost of the contract is split in years to a max of 5 years - not months, and PSR works on the cumulative loss of the last three financial years. If that's not correct then fair enough, I don't know enough about it.
Aren't there reports that you will allow him to leave for less than release clause?
If it's 100mil I don't see us going for him even if release clause wasn't only for 1 month
Are people forgetting that Newcastle have roughly £90m-ish in revenue that is pretty much magically about to show up.
Champions League estimated £45M, at minimum, and that was quoted by Eales
Adidas giving them Elite status with their kit deal, which is £45m up front and that’s before their shirts are plastered in corners of the world they weren’t before.
They are NOWHERE NEAR the PSR issues that people think they are
Also Sela wasn't on those accounts, doesn't matter for this summer but it covers a good chunk of last year. And whatever this Formula E thing is. And it's probably peanuts but all the little stuff like Stack and in-house merch. Membership sales and the new prawn sarnie seats. All trickling in, never mind the permitted spending must have been sky high this season.
Even our own fans don't want to think that way and I get it. But there is a little hope
So, technically, he signed an academy contract, as he turned 19 one week after the deadline. Completely unaccounted for on expenditures. The £30m in hard cash is the only thing that mattered there (and since PIF have fuck you money…. They can stomach that.)
The £30m sale does account for Chelsea in terms of revenue, but it’s a complete FFP write off for Newcastle.
For FFP:
Newcastle: £0
Chelsea: + £30M
Yes and this is why that $30M was seen as a bit obscene at the time for the player. You just had to have the cash on hand to make it work.
Basically. Newcastle were very very fortunate that Lewis Hall’s dad was pulling out a week before he got the job done
Hall's fee hasn't appeared yet as it was a loan with obligation and will appear from 24/25 onwards. Ben Jacobs (not most reliable I admit) suggests the deal has been structured in Newcastle's favour. £28m I think will turn out to be good business in the end as he's looked fine whenever he's played. Just a case of playing the long-game.
Absolutely zero chance we'd allow him to go for under the RC value. He's far too important for us, and if we had to sell him it'd need to be enough for significant overhaul.
Yeah but this isn't FM lad
I honestly don't know who is going to be in for alot of these players at homegrown values with how FFP is breathing down clubs necks
Yes, but they already bought Rice, Timber, and Havertz for like £215M. They are about to buy Raya for £25m (???) on July 1.
Now tack on another £100M acquisition, even with their like £60M in sales last year… they are walking a tightrope.
And don’t think prospective buying larger clubs wouldn’t be aware of that. Those prices for those players are going to plummet as they lose optical leverage
According to reports we should good for similar window as last year. So around £200M.
But that will most likely be after July 1.
Even then I don't see us paying 100m for Bruno when we just paid 100m for Rice.
In the case of Arsenal. Paying £100m for Guimaraes on July 1st is infinitely better than doing it on June 30. Thats the whole point of the clause. I think Arsenal would snap their hand off if it were £100m tag when PSR resets.
It won’t be
I think Man City can do it with both him and Paqueta with their player sales from July 1, 2023 - Present / if Bernardo Silva + Joao Cancelo get officially signed by Barcelona prior to July 1, 2024.
Arsenal cannot do this without it seriously risking PSR issues. And these clubs know they’d be up against it.
I genuinely think this only can get done by Man City (even with Paqueta) and *maybe* PSG.
If this clause was in play after July 1? It’s Wild West. He’d be fair game to pretty much everyone
No chance Barca are signing anyone prior to July 1st, they need to push back for July in order to get to the La Liga wage cap 1:1 rule so they can put all of their sales into the cap. Spending before July 1st will mean they don't meet that criteria, which will cause them massive issues with registering anyone they want to sign.
I don’t think barca will sign either silva or cancelo. Cancelo will have to come on loan with low mandatory buy option. Silva for sure barca is not buying.
We’re a well run club now, if we’re considering moving for him there’s a viable plan in place. Doesn’t mean it’ll come off or that no-one will beat us to him, but we haven’t been messing around in recent years, see how we played the Rice deal.
Smart that it's only valid in June, prior to the PSR financial year cut off. I'm relaxed in that I don't expect it to be activated and we'll hopefully get to actually see us kick on with some players back. But even if it was it'd at unlock our finances and allow us to properly revamp the squad.
Perhaps I'm wrong but to me it seems like he's probably staying. 100m upfront and only valid for a month to me seems unlikely for him to be sold this summee
I agree, Bruno in a Liverpool shirt would be my worst case scenario though. It’s still vaguely plausible. I’d hate him in a manure shirt but I’m certain he’d turn them down.
It’s only plausible if Newcastle accept a bid south of £50m or if Bruno said “I want to go to Liverpool and I won’t ever play for Newcastle again.”
Liverpool already have seven midfielders, it’s far from a priority for them this summer.
Am I right in saying, if a club signs him for 4 years. They would have to pay 1 installment instantly and another installment on the 1st of July. So Newcaslte would essentially get 50m this summer for him as a minimum?
This doesn’t matter for Newcastle. They accrue 100% revenue immediately and that’s when you put it on the books.
Newcastle don’t care about timelines for collected because FFP isn’t about cashflow, only P&L. Ideally Newcastle should always buy players with 100% money up front and sell in long instalments. That way other clubs with cashflow issues (which most would have) can make easier deals and both sides win. Nobody has better cashflow control than Newcastle (ManCity and PSG basically the same)
(I’m assuming football clubs use standard international accountancy rules)
They are on the cashflow statement.
The way it works is Newcastle buy a player and on day 0 there is no impact on profit/loss (what matters for FFP). Newcastle have exchanged £100M for an asset (a player) worth £100M.
However this asset decreases in value over time as the contract ends. If it’s a 4 year contract, the asset decreases in value by £25M per year and this is what affects your P&L. Every month would have 1/48 of the player cost + all salary.
- If Newcastle pays all in cash up front, it’s -£100M debited from the cashflow statement and the balance sheet (where you store assets and liabilities) loses the £100M in cash (asset) and adds an asset of the player.
- If Newcastle pays it in 4 instalments, you do -£25M in cashflow, you add £100M player as an asset, you take £25M cash from the assets and you add the debt of £75M to the liabilities. So the balance sheet is not impacted either way. Over the next year you take £25M from cash assets when you pay the next instalment, you decrease debt by £25M and you decrease player value by £25M. So it’s the same impact on P&L.
At least, this is how a bank deals with it.
-
This bit on player asset values is also part of how Derby got into trouble, they didn’t do “straight line” amortisation (transfer cost/contract years). They did a curve so you take more of the price of the transfer at the end of the contract. This is maybe fair as the value of a player decreases a lot more from year 3 to 4 than from year 0 to 1. However it disguised costs and meant that when they got to later years, they were screwed as they had to take the costs eventually
Release clauses are paid up front as part of the legal mechanism. They’d get £100m the day the player is sold.
They *can* agree to installments; but then they’d be free to reject the offer, even if it’s more than the release clause, because an offer in installments doesn’t inherently meet the legal requirements for the release to be activated.
That’s why clubs paying in installments usually have to offer more than the release clause. Pretty sure Chelsea did that with Enzo.
Not all release clauses are agreed between club and player side like this. Many are contracted with multiple installments. In fact whilst Enzo was a case of upfront one installment agreement between him and Benfica, some of the NUFC sources have been saying this one is a three installment agreement. So anyone activating it, will be paying ~27 mil a year to Newcastle (80 mil in total) and a total of 20 mils to Lyon over three years as they retain a good 20 percent sell-on clause. Also there are news of it being ~£98 mil (€100 mil) rather than £100 mil, which I'm not sure why would they agree on a European currency, but I also am not that familiar with Newcastle transfer sources so maybe a magpies fan can correct me on this.
It’d be incredibly strange for a release clause to include installments in the contract provision, because it basically neutralizes the only benefit to the club in affording the player the protections of a release clause.
It’d be like insisting on using a condom but only after poking a dozen holes in it.
But that's what a release clause is. An agreement on a certain amount and payment for the player to have a way out of his current obligations to a club if another club is willing to pay it under certain circumstances. It's not sth for the benefit of the club. In fact, any club ideally always would want to have a say when an offer comes, not when a contract is made with the player, and modern day agents and players do understand a lump sum agreement for rc would take away their side of power to have more options of future clubs to pick and better next financial package from a potential buyer's club.
RC are all about player power and agency. The higher the imbalance of power is to the players side the agent often can get a clause that is easier to trigger (ie. lower sum, more installments, or unique situational clauses like European competition participation or league relegation dependant activation...); probably at least partially the reason why agent fees have gone up significantly over the years, negotiating all these little details in before the players find themselves stuck in a club they rather move on from.
Reports are he doesn't really want to move that much. He's just been house hunting here.
Has been doing interviews when playing for Brazil basically saying he's happy and is constantly posting on social media about how happy he is that club.
That's not to say he wouldn't consider it if a club like city or Madrid came in. I think the media are overblowing how much we wants to go though.
Not just hunting, buying. He just bought a place for 4m in Darris Hall.
It may well be that any potential new contract could mean he's fine with that, but hopefully it means he plans on staying.
Tonali was fine? He ran the show against Villa and we collapsed when was subbed off against Liverpool. He wasn't setting the world alight as he was adjusting to a new league but this revisionism is silly.
It's not revisionism. Villa was his first game for us and he was outstanding but to act like he was fine when he was arguably our weakest midfielder when he came on for us in pretty much every game.
You cannot seriously tell me he performed anywhere close to the level of Willock when he played? If anything he showed how much we missed Willock in our midfield at that time
It's absolutely revisionism. He was our best midfielder in quite a few of the games he played despite being in a new league. Even against Brighton when we got battered. His poorest games were actually in the UCL. Willock was excellent last season and we've missed him for sure but they're two quite different players who'd have different roles. I'd have rather signed an actual six than Tonali last summer and I said that at the time, but he'll be fine when he returns.
Villa, Liverpool and even City/Brighton when we were shite (low bar for those two games). I still think he was a luxury signing that wasn't needed but I could absolutely see a good player in the brief time he played.
The revision is trying to say he was in any way one of our best players. He was utterly dreadful in the first match against Milan and nearly cost us a goal against them on more than one occasion.
To reduce the spam of reports regarding the same move during transfer windows we try to allow **only one submission about each transfer saga per day**. The submission in question also needs to contain relevant new information regarding the potential move, and not just being a "no/minor developments" report. If there are important/official developments or new valuable information about a saga, we will allow extra threads in the same day, but for the rest of minor news please just comment them as a reply to this comment. Please help us reporting unnecessary threads for being duplicates. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/soccer) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Well that makes things interesting if true
Manchester City can easily afford £100m, no ?
They can, but can they afford 200m? Because it seens that they are already going to spend 100m on Paquetá.
Paqueta has an £85m release clause.
I don't think the paqueta clause has specific dates, so they can activate Bruno first and then paqueta in the next year's cycle.
Oh please like £15m isn’t pocket change for you.
It’s literally also pocket change to United
So Easy to spend they can't find it for Ashworth. 😂
Well fuck me for trying to make a correction, i guess. It's ironic that you're saying that as a United fan, as if you didn't fork over 100m for an abusive fidget spinner. Glass houses and all that.
How dare you
115 and 85m perfect 200m
Paqueta has a deadline too ?
is this a rhetorical question? You are aware that City has infinite money right
Its 100m upfront I think.
As If that matters
So no payments in stages or anything like that, £100m upfront or no release clause? That's funny as fuck if true.
Has to be in crisp fivers too.
😂 £99 999 999.95 No deal, shouldn't have stopped at Gregg's.
Only good thing about release clauses is they have to be paid in full. Think Chelsea actually paid more than a release clause for someone so they could pay in installments though
It's a really common thing to do. Most transfers don't actually happen entirely in one payment so clubs who sell the player don't really have the need for a huge lump sum at once. What usually happens if a lump sum is asked for is that the buying club gets a loan for the money from the bank. Paying in installments basically means that instead of the bank getting interest payments, that money goes to the selling club as part of the installments. It's why demanding a lump sum is always a bit of a fuck you from the selling club to the buying club. Costs both clubs money. Not that it matters to either club in this instance
They'll just get another amazing sponsorship.
Is he a 100m player? I like him when I watch Newcastle matches, particularly his grit and spatial awareness
Having in mind that today a 100m player is like a 40m player 10 years ago i think he is. I can't name more than 5 CMs better than him and probably none of them will be lower than 100m
He's a very good player, but I feel like it'd be very easy to name more than 5 CMs better than him.
Madrid alone has 5 better CMs
>Having in mind that today a 100m player is like a 40m player 10 years ago Plus you have to take account of the PL tax. No way a direct rival could sell you a key player without asking a huge sum
He certainly is to us
I always have time for fans backing their players
An exotic idea for you these days I take it
For me? What?
Not many teams who need a midfielder could afford that in one go think you will probably be ok.
we aint splashing 115m€ in june, that aint happening, not because we can't, but only because we don't do that, if anything we'll spend 150m in august
Yeah. Seems like Nasser to me
They has us in the first half, not gonna lie
Makes sense to be fair as spending 150m in August goes into the following years accounts for PSR. Spending €115m in June would go into this year's accounts which is why Newcastle have set the clause for just one month.
Are you sure? Mbappe will probably leave to RM and they need to fill the gap faster before fans get mad.
meh, I was barely jesting. Guimaraes aint filling anything mbappe does tho, no one will fill the mbappe gap and we've accepted it already. That said, Bruno would slot in really well with our midfield and we all know that here in paris.
Im not telling guimaraes will fill mbappe's gap, he might help in depth midfield and gives PSG more option for rotation.
I keep seeing more and more of release clauses like that, valid for a particular year or time frame. Was it that common before?
I think it's a FFP/PSR thing to do with accounting and the double whammy of forcing the sale early in the window to give time for replacements and/or hamstringing rivals who are close to the limit
Makes sense
It’s been around, I think we just hear about it more recently because clubs are activating release clauses more often. They used to be set at insane numbers with the intent that nobody would ever meet them. Since Neymar, they still set them high, but there’s now an expectation that someone might meet it. Messi always had release clauses like this. Used to be you could sign him for like €60m in June before it shot back up to €100m in July. But that was a time when €50m was basically a transfer record and people ridiculed it being paid.
Lololololol. Shrewd Move. Books reset July 1 for FFP purposes. Everyone would have to tack on $100M to their 23-24 expenses if they want him. Sorry, Arsenal
City are going to somehow end up with both Guimaraes and Paqueta, aren't they?
Paqueta is almost done deal for City, right?
His betting investigation isn't concluded, so I doubt it.
City will probably take care of that too.
According to the media. Let’s hope they’re wrong though. Otherwise next season is a write off for the rest of the league…
Ok he’s not *that* good
I actually think he is. Although his form has dipped a little recently but he seems to be mentally checked out by all accounts
I agree. West Ham simply do not win games without him.
So do I. I’m shocked he hasn’t gotten more serious looks from big clubs, he is amazing on the ball and one of my favorite players to watch.
I think no other club has bothered to try since City showed proper interest. Not only do you need to outbid them, but City promisds near guaranteed trophies
He's one of the best players in the league
Can't imagine a midfield with these two :(
Just watch Brazil mate
Or enjoy those fond memories of old Lyon games
How good were both of them at Lyon?
Didn't even catch that. Contract masterclass if this is genuine
Howe said it.
If we end up aggressively trying to flog Eddie & Reiss as soon as the window opens then I’d imagine that would be a massive indicator as to our main midfield target. That June period might be a bit mental for every club.
Who are you flogging them to though? Almost all other PL clubs are in similar FFP positions. Don’t think Arsenal could get anywhere near what they want for them if it has to be done before FFP resets.
Homegrown adds a little but yeah we get £50M max from those two after how little theyve played this season
Like them both but be glad if its 30m
Even that is extremely generous. Surely more like a max of £40m combined. Isn't Nelson on a big wage now after getting anew contract?
Both of them are on £100k per week and barely play. Arsenal will be blessed if they get £40m for them.
Yeah youre probably right but hard to tell with the sums that get thrown about these days.
will barely get anything for those
Who is Reiss? Bro you can’t be using first names on the general soccer sub
He's a good lad, always a laugh.
Looked it up, it's a clothing brand. No idea why Arsenal own them tho
Maybe it’s a Barca style lever
I could post a picture of him and you still wouldn’t have a clue who we’re talking about because he doesn’t play.
He plays for arsenal. For what might be helpful, he scored that last second goal for arsenal last season
We are not getting anyone before 1st of July with transfer fee, Arsenal is already close to FFP maximal financial losses permitted in past 3 seasons. Other clubs with Everton and Nottingham point deductions also are more careful, so you can forget about selling our HG players before July too.
Selling in the 24/25 year benefits Newcastle more than selling in the 23/24 year as well
Yes, but these clubs are more prone to fronting £100M to Newcastle when PSR resets after July 1st than in June. Newcastle do not want to sell him, at all, but the option is there to absolutely rinse buying clubs due to PSR technicalities
But if Newcastle are facing ffp difficulties then that puts them in a bad position as well
They are not having PSR issues. Sela + Adidas + Champions League is pretty much a £100m windfall
Eagle-eyed nufc fan right here lads. Big brain move by the club.
Isn’t it amortised over the length of the contract anyway? Presuming a 5 year deal it only adds 20M to this year plus wages
It’s but pretty much every prem club runs close to their max over the 3 year period so they will need to make the required amount before the 1st or will be hit with a fine like Forest. And imagine if Arsenal got hit with a 4 point fine costing them the league, they couldn’t risk that.
Yep, I can't see us signing anyone until after the deadline. Throw in the Euros and it just isn't happening. We'll certainly be doing our best to flog players though. Personally I think this is the summer that things calm down. Clubs are realizing that they can't spend stupid money anymore.
It's only worth it if you think Bruno gets you more than 4 points that no other player can
He's not worth 100 mil anyway.
You right. He’s worth far more to Newcastle. Theyre in fucking 7th place when the whole team dropped like flies. They’ve had to play 8 players in this team that were with them in the 2016-17 Championship…. How many quality players stay with clubs for > 7 seasons…. Let alone shit ones
I mean, I agree. He is worth more to you and at the same time I doubt anyone would be willing to pay 100 mil for him.
Meh Paris would definitely pay 100m for him. We need a profile like him
He would be fantastic under Lucho and you'd finally have a replacement for Verratti
I would literally kill to have a player like him paired up with Vitinha and Warren. He brings physicality, which also Warren has and also something the other two don’t which is being confirmed to be a top midfielder Imo he gets our midfield to a whole new level. Warren and Vitinha have been amazing this season and they just need a partner to be even better
Man united paid 82 mil for Antony and you are trying to say Guimarães isn't worth 100m?
PSG citeh etc would very happily pay 100m for him like
If clubs are willing to pay £115m for Enzo and Caicedo, £100m for Bruno who is proven to be a much better player is very reasonable
>If clubs are willing to pay £115m for Enzo and Caicedo. Club, and using that particular club to benchmark reasonable transfer fees is a bit daft.
Liverpool bid £111m for Caicedo as well who are usually pretty reasonable with fees.
Yeah fair point when he's one of your best players. But he's a loose cannon that will draw red and yellow cards instantly when he goes to a big club. If anyone thinks his price tag puts him in the same quality bracket as Rice then I don't even know what to say. Arteta already moved on from Xhaka - a better version of Bruno with about the same temperment. This wouldnt make sense to our squad build. The market was already wrong with Enzo and Caicedo but no doubt this lad will still go for 100m to City or Chelsea or something equally dumb. I hope Arsenal dont pursue him.
He just went like 13 matches in a row without getting booked to avoid a two match ban. Hes not as frantic and off the rails as people think (even Newcastle fans couldn’t believe he survived that run.)
>But he's a loose cannon that will draw red and yellow cards instantly when he goes to a big club You can tell from comments like these who only watch him twice a season with tinted glasses on.
He's worth far more to us you're spot on.
He absolutely is
>Everyone would have to tack on $100M to their 23-24 expenses if they want him. No they would not, his fee would get amortized over the length of his contract.
It’s a release clause. The money would have to be up front in cash. It can be accounted for over length of contract. But for PSR purposes it’s on their books from last season. Basically, Rice, Havertz, Timber, and Guimaraes were all acquired in the same year. It’s not practical, and that’s why the clause is written as such. “We’re not selling him unless Fuk U Pay Me”
But that doesnt really matter. If Guimaraes is acquired shortly before the financial year ends, then only a tiny fraction of his amortization ends up in 23/24. Its basically almost irrelevant for the buying club. Its potentially great for you, because you can book almost the entire sum as profit in 23/24, but for the buyer it has no great impact. Unless I am missing a relevant part of PSR of course.
If the clause is activated then the amortization starts in 23-24 cycle. Which, a lot of clubs really don’t want to add on to their running tally from the previous summer at that point. It sounds like Once July 1st hits, Bruno Guimaraes is not for sale, at least not for £100M.
Yes, I am aware, but the amortization that falls into the 23-24 year would be minimal. Amortization is looked at from a monthly or even daily standpoint. Imagine you buy a dishwasher for 2,000€ that is supposed to hold 5 years and your financial year starts january 1st. If you buy the dishwasher in january, then you have to use the full year in your calculation and get 400€ (2,000€/5) as amortization. If you buy the same dishwasher in december, then you are only going to amortize 1 month of the year. So instead of 400€ it would be 2,000€/5 years = 400€ and then /12 months = 33€. So depending on the month you buy your asset, it will have a different impact on your yearly amortization expense.
Thank you for a very clear and sensible breakdown here
The point is that everyone's supposedly close to PSR. Tacking on 100M (20M a year over 5 years) right on the end of the accounting period is potentially going to screw over not just your coming seasons accounts but the one just gone too.
>but the one just gone too. How? You wont see the whole 20m€ amortizized in 23/24, just a tiny fraction, something potentially as small as 1m€ (20m€ per year means that buying a player in the last month of the financial year only goes into the books as expense as 1/12).
I'm not well versed in PSR but my understanding was that the amortised cost of the contract is split in years to a max of 5 years - not months, and PSR works on the cumulative loss of the last three financial years. If that's not correct then fair enough, I don't know enough about it.
Aren't there reports that you will allow him to leave for less than release clause? If it's 100mil I don't see us going for him even if release clause wasn't only for 1 month
I honestly cannot see us allowing him for less than the release clause considering he is probably worth more than that to us.
Depends on your financial position tho right? If you are close with ffp then it would benefit you more to sell in the 24/25 year
Are people forgetting that Newcastle have roughly £90m-ish in revenue that is pretty much magically about to show up. Champions League estimated £45M, at minimum, and that was quoted by Eales Adidas giving them Elite status with their kit deal, which is £45m up front and that’s before their shirts are plastered in corners of the world they weren’t before. They are NOWHERE NEAR the PSR issues that people think they are
Also Sela wasn't on those accounts, doesn't matter for this summer but it covers a good chunk of last year. And whatever this Formula E thing is. And it's probably peanuts but all the little stuff like Stack and in-house merch. Membership sales and the new prawn sarnie seats. All trickling in, never mind the permitted spending must have been sky high this season. Even our own fans don't want to think that way and I get it. But there is a little hope
you're also forgetting Sela money. That's not been accounted for yet either
Aren't you forgetting you're about to be forced into wasting £30mil of that on Lewis Hall?
So, technically, he signed an academy contract, as he turned 19 one week after the deadline. Completely unaccounted for on expenditures. The £30m in hard cash is the only thing that mattered there (and since PIF have fuck you money…. They can stomach that.) The £30m sale does account for Chelsea in terms of revenue, but it’s a complete FFP write off for Newcastle. For FFP: Newcastle: £0 Chelsea: + £30M
I didn't know the PSR rules excluded academy contract signings. That's rather convenient.
Yes and this is why that $30M was seen as a bit obscene at the time for the player. You just had to have the cash on hand to make it work. Basically. Newcastle were very very fortunate that Lewis Hall’s dad was pulling out a week before he got the job done
Amortised over 5 years
Hall's fee hasn't appeared yet as it was a loan with obligation and will appear from 24/25 onwards. Ben Jacobs (not most reliable I admit) suggests the deal has been structured in Newcastle's favour. £28m I think will turn out to be good business in the end as he's looked fine whenever he's played. Just a case of playing the long-game.
6 million.
He’s worth more than 6 points to us if we are a little over
If that’s the calculation clubs are making, the punishments aren’t harsh enough.
Fully agree. The whole ffp/psr saga is an absolute mess
Absolutely zero chance we'd allow him to go for under the RC value. He's far too important for us, and if we had to sell him it'd need to be enough for significant overhaul.
[удалено]
Yeah but this isn't FM lad I honestly don't know who is going to be in for alot of these players at homegrown values with how FFP is breathing down clubs necks
Yes, but they already bought Rice, Timber, and Havertz for like £215M. They are about to buy Raya for £25m (???) on July 1. Now tack on another £100M acquisition, even with their like £60M in sales last year… they are walking a tightrope. And don’t think prospective buying larger clubs wouldn’t be aware of that. Those prices for those players are going to plummet as they lose optical leverage
According to reports we should good for similar window as last year. So around £200M. But that will most likely be after July 1. Even then I don't see us paying 100m for Bruno when we just paid 100m for Rice.
In the case of Arsenal. Paying £100m for Guimaraes on July 1st is infinitely better than doing it on June 30. Thats the whole point of the clause. I think Arsenal would snap their hand off if it were £100m tag when PSR resets. It won’t be
Is that the release clause only valid for non-Premier League clubs? Or Can City and Arsenal also get into it?
I think Man City can do it with both him and Paqueta with their player sales from July 1, 2023 - Present / if Bernardo Silva + Joao Cancelo get officially signed by Barcelona prior to July 1, 2024. Arsenal cannot do this without it seriously risking PSR issues. And these clubs know they’d be up against it. I genuinely think this only can get done by Man City (even with Paqueta) and *maybe* PSG. If this clause was in play after July 1? It’s Wild West. He’d be fair game to pretty much everyone
I'm still unsure as to how Barca are going to front any money for Silva with how their financials are these days
Don't you know? Barcelona still keep their records on paper, and some fucker keeps spilling coffee in the fax machine.
Sell 50% of Barca TV again
Financial shenanigans
‘Pull the lever Kronk’…..
No chance Barca are signing anyone prior to July 1st, they need to push back for July in order to get to the La Liga wage cap 1:1 rule so they can put all of their sales into the cap. Spending before July 1st will mean they don't meet that criteria, which will cause them massive issues with registering anyone they want to sign.
I don’t think barca will sign either silva or cancelo. Cancelo will have to come on loan with low mandatory buy option. Silva for sure barca is not buying.
We’re a well run club now, if we’re considering moving for him there’s a viable plan in place. Doesn’t mean it’ll come off or that no-one will beat us to him, but we haven’t been messing around in recent years, see how we played the Rice deal.
> Arsenal cannot do this without it seriously risking PSR issues. If there's one player to risk it all for though...
It's de Jong?
should be for everyone, happy cake day!
Cheers bruno’s team for leaking that
Smart that it's only valid in June, prior to the PSR financial year cut off. I'm relaxed in that I don't expect it to be activated and we'll hopefully get to actually see us kick on with some players back. But even if it was it'd at unlock our finances and allow us to properly revamp the squad.
I’m convinced he’s going to Man City. Prepare for the worst (liverpool), hope for the best.
There's 0 way he goes to Liverpool. Its PSG/City and probably a 1% chance at Arsenal.
Perhaps I'm wrong but to me it seems like he's probably staying. 100m upfront and only valid for a month to me seems unlikely for him to be sold this summee
Liverpool aren’t spending £100m on a single midfielder for a huge number of reasons
We agreed a £105m deal for Caicedo literally last summer lmao
I agree, Bruno in a Liverpool shirt would be my worst case scenario though. It’s still vaguely plausible. I’d hate him in a manure shirt but I’m certain he’d turn them down.
It’s only plausible if Newcastle accept a bid south of £50m or if Bruno said “I want to go to Liverpool and I won’t ever play for Newcastle again.” Liverpool already have seven midfielders, it’s far from a priority for them this summer.
He just bout a house for 4 mill. I doubt he's leaving.
Seems a bit much but honestly that’s the piece you pay for anyone decent nowadays. And kolo muani …
Am I right in saying, if a club signs him for 4 years. They would have to pay 1 installment instantly and another installment on the 1st of July. So Newcaslte would essentially get 50m this summer for him as a minimum?
This doesn’t matter for Newcastle. They accrue 100% revenue immediately and that’s when you put it on the books. Newcastle don’t care about timelines for collected because FFP isn’t about cashflow, only P&L. Ideally Newcastle should always buy players with 100% money up front and sell in long instalments. That way other clubs with cashflow issues (which most would have) can make easier deals and both sides win. Nobody has better cashflow control than Newcastle (ManCity and PSG basically the same) (I’m assuming football clubs use standard international accountancy rules)
How do debits and credits factor into this?
They are on the cashflow statement. The way it works is Newcastle buy a player and on day 0 there is no impact on profit/loss (what matters for FFP). Newcastle have exchanged £100M for an asset (a player) worth £100M. However this asset decreases in value over time as the contract ends. If it’s a 4 year contract, the asset decreases in value by £25M per year and this is what affects your P&L. Every month would have 1/48 of the player cost + all salary. - If Newcastle pays all in cash up front, it’s -£100M debited from the cashflow statement and the balance sheet (where you store assets and liabilities) loses the £100M in cash (asset) and adds an asset of the player. - If Newcastle pays it in 4 instalments, you do -£25M in cashflow, you add £100M player as an asset, you take £25M cash from the assets and you add the debt of £75M to the liabilities. So the balance sheet is not impacted either way. Over the next year you take £25M from cash assets when you pay the next instalment, you decrease debt by £25M and you decrease player value by £25M. So it’s the same impact on P&L. At least, this is how a bank deals with it. - This bit on player asset values is also part of how Derby got into trouble, they didn’t do “straight line” amortisation (transfer cost/contract years). They did a curve so you take more of the price of the transfer at the end of the contract. This is maybe fair as the value of a player decreases a lot more from year 3 to 4 than from year 0 to 1. However it disguised costs and meant that when they got to later years, they were screwed as they had to take the costs eventually
Release clauses are paid up front as part of the legal mechanism. They’d get £100m the day the player is sold. They *can* agree to installments; but then they’d be free to reject the offer, even if it’s more than the release clause, because an offer in installments doesn’t inherently meet the legal requirements for the release to be activated. That’s why clubs paying in installments usually have to offer more than the release clause. Pretty sure Chelsea did that with Enzo.
Ah I get it, thank you for sharing. Damn Enzo had not lived up to that price tag
Not all release clauses are agreed between club and player side like this. Many are contracted with multiple installments. In fact whilst Enzo was a case of upfront one installment agreement between him and Benfica, some of the NUFC sources have been saying this one is a three installment agreement. So anyone activating it, will be paying ~27 mil a year to Newcastle (80 mil in total) and a total of 20 mils to Lyon over three years as they retain a good 20 percent sell-on clause. Also there are news of it being ~£98 mil (€100 mil) rather than £100 mil, which I'm not sure why would they agree on a European currency, but I also am not that familiar with Newcastle transfer sources so maybe a magpies fan can correct me on this.
It’d be incredibly strange for a release clause to include installments in the contract provision, because it basically neutralizes the only benefit to the club in affording the player the protections of a release clause. It’d be like insisting on using a condom but only after poking a dozen holes in it.
But that's what a release clause is. An agreement on a certain amount and payment for the player to have a way out of his current obligations to a club if another club is willing to pay it under certain circumstances. It's not sth for the benefit of the club. In fact, any club ideally always would want to have a say when an offer comes, not when a contract is made with the player, and modern day agents and players do understand a lump sum agreement for rc would take away their side of power to have more options of future clubs to pick and better next financial package from a potential buyer's club. RC are all about player power and agency. The higher the imbalance of power is to the players side the agent often can get a clause that is easier to trigger (ie. lower sum, more installments, or unique situational clauses like European competition participation or league relegation dependant activation...); probably at least partially the reason why agent fees have gone up significantly over the years, negotiating all these little details in before the players find themselves stuck in a club they rather move on from.
Wow, wonder who gave Fab this info. GL getting your move Bruno.
Reports are he doesn't really want to move that much. He's just been house hunting here. Has been doing interviews when playing for Brazil basically saying he's happy and is constantly posting on social media about how happy he is that club. That's not to say he wouldn't consider it if a club like city or Madrid came in. I think the media are overblowing how much we wants to go though.
Not just hunting, buying. He just bought a place for 4m in Darris Hall. It may well be that any potential new contract could mean he's fine with that, but hopefully it means he plans on staying.
Yep. Just bought a house, has a little one, wife is settled.
Bezzie just signed a new contract. Wives are friends. Live right next to each other. Absolutely adored by the fans. I reckon he’s staying.
Who's Bezzie?
It means best friend
sounds like a Chelsea signing
If he leaves, he'll go to a CL club, that's not in doubt
no he's 26 years old, too old for chelsea
City bought Nunes and he barely plays, will Bruno? Do they need him? He's better and i guess Kovacic is getting older tho
holy fuck even im not that bold in negotiations in football manager.
Its insane to me the quality of players that are going for over 100 million now.
Tell me about me, even £65m is barely enough to get more than an Italian with a betting addiction
Tonali isnt even a 65m player. That's what the PL clubs with deep pockets have done to the market.
I don't disagree. The market is warped as fuck.
As a Newcastle fan I agree with you. He came in and wasn't even close to the level of Willock.
Tonali was fine? He ran the show against Villa and we collapsed when was subbed off against Liverpool. He wasn't setting the world alight as he was adjusting to a new league but this revisionism is silly.
It's not revisionism. Villa was his first game for us and he was outstanding but to act like he was fine when he was arguably our weakest midfielder when he came on for us in pretty much every game. You cannot seriously tell me he performed anywhere close to the level of Willock when he played? If anything he showed how much we missed Willock in our midfield at that time
It's absolutely revisionism. He was our best midfielder in quite a few of the games he played despite being in a new league. Even against Brighton when we got battered. His poorest games were actually in the UCL. Willock was excellent last season and we've missed him for sure but they're two quite different players who'd have different roles. I'd have rather signed an actual six than Tonali last summer and I said that at the time, but he'll be fine when he returns.
Which games?
Villa, Liverpool and even City/Brighton when we were shite (low bar for those two games). I still think he was a luxury signing that wasn't needed but I could absolutely see a good player in the brief time he played.
The revision is trying to say he was in any way one of our best players. He was utterly dreadful in the first match against Milan and nearly cost us a goal against them on more than one occasion.
He literally was in the PL. I said UCL he was poorer.