Liverpool related transfer speculation
- Thread starter dee
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
-
- Tags
- liverpool
- Status
I’d say so, unless Ibou’s injury is worth spending the extra £5m.
Rebecca Lowe was saying it's virtually a done deal and he'll sign tomorrow.
I know she’s on TV but is she ITK?
I think he was always gonna play, I think this transfer is gonna happen, makes sense that he is playing coz Glasner can use the international break to get his new defender ready before the PL resumes.
She's a massive Palace fan isn't she, so she could easily have heard something legit.
Yeah.
Just hope this isn't one of those Kelleher moves, where we kinda owe a player a move.
We can get at least £20 mill from an English team.
£10m is not worth it. AC Milan can fuck off the broke bastards. We don't owe them Jack Shit, They bid the market rate which is £30m or fuck the right off
After Kyle Walker's short stint there I'd be a bit surprised if JoGo actually wanted the move.
I think those c*nts at AC Milan - are just getting these players on the cheap / free to see if they can make a profit if they turn out to do well. There is something off with that club - regardless of what you think of Walker - his pace in that league would make him the fastest player anyway - there was no reason why he should have failed.
Including Guehi as it stands today £200m net over across two years
View: https://x.com/liverpool1_love/status/1962492645605016042
View: https://x.com/liverpool1_love/status/1962492645605016042
I wonder if we'll spend another penny in my lifetime.
Good luck to Harvey. Seems a decent guy. Hope he does well for Villa.
Good luck to Harvey. Seems a decent guy. Hope he does well for Villa.
Agreed. He's both a decent guy and a decent footballer.
I read the following about the Elliot transfer to Aston Villa and was wondering if it is bullshit or plausible.
Maybe @Beamrider would have an opinion.
The Elliott fee is low for 2 reasons. Villa's PSR troubles and Villa won't actually ever pay have to pay it. It's an accounting trick. Basically Liverpool and Villa have an agreement on buying Morgan Rogers for £65m. Liverpool will only actually pay Villa £30m for Rogers next summer and that's the only fee that will actually switch hands. The Elliott obligation fee is cancelled out and just passed over and back to each other on the same day. But next year accounts, Liverpool will register a £35m 'income' for Elliott and 'spend' £15m (£65m/5) on Rogers. Similarly Villa will 'spend' £7m (£35m/5) on Eilliott but will register £65m income for Rogers. Both clubs can register large PSR profit on the deals.
Maybe @Beamrider would have an opinion.
The Elliott fee is low for 2 reasons. Villa's PSR troubles and Villa won't actually ever pay have to pay it. It's an accounting trick. Basically Liverpool and Villa have an agreement on buying Morgan Rogers for £65m. Liverpool will only actually pay Villa £30m for Rogers next summer and that's the only fee that will actually switch hands. The Elliott obligation fee is cancelled out and just passed over and back to each other on the same day. But next year accounts, Liverpool will register a £35m 'income' for Elliott and 'spend' £15m (£65m/5) on Rogers. Similarly Villa will 'spend' £7m (£35m/5) on Eilliott but will register £65m income for Rogers. Both clubs can register large PSR profit on the deals.
The accounting is all plausible and works, but I don't think there will be a secret, undisclosed deal for Rogers. If there's a deal, it'll be disclosed to the League, otherwise it won't be binding. I think we'd have done it as a purchase with a loan back and matched up the proceeds with the Elliott ones if this were actually happening. And I fancy Villa would have wanted to do something to trigger the profit now if they'd agreed to sell the player next summer.
Are all these loan deals with obligations to buy essentially just tricks to shift gains on players to later years? So income from sales and amortisation on their replacements are more closely matched?
That was one of the things I'd not considered before - that you could essentially break even over several years but still run into trouble because you have these spikes in income that aren't really captured well by a 3 year rolling assessment period.
That was one of the things I'd not considered before - that you could essentially break even over several years but still run into trouble because you have these spikes in income that aren't really captured well by a 3 year rolling assessment period.
Thanks for the reply mate
It's difficult to know exactly but I suspect that's what's happening. It could also be about cash flow but there's so much of it going on that every time I hear "loan with obligation to buy" I assume they are gaming FFP / PSR.
I wasn't involved with the discussions around exactly how these various deals are treated, but I got the impression that it was possible to structure them so the seller and the buyer would get a mis-match - e.g. seller might find a way to book the gain now, even though the buyer wouldn't take the capital costs on board until next year.
Cannot unlike this enough... Joe can still play a crucial role for us here, as we try to build on our recent success and really make some history. Why would he want to leave, knowing what might be about to happen here?
- Status
