• The first stage of the forum upgrades has now been completed but they remain in a degraded state and are still being worked on.
    Please read this thread for more details.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.

Is Trai Hume good enough for the Prem?


Just for the assault of Ben Brereton Diaz I would keep him, in fact I would give him a statue for that!
Never have I seen a player looking so lost and battered as Diaz from a single tackle.
Sure he had only been on the pitch for 5mins...
 
sarboas said:
would he be a homegrown PSR sale given he was young when joining? sorry no idea how it works
Click to expand...
Being 'homegrown' has nothing to do with PSR. Under PSR a purchase is accounted for over the length of the contract. So signing a player for £25m is recorded as £5m in years one to five (Side note, this is why Chelsea were giving 8 year contracts, it meant a smaller hit on PSR - that's now banned). If you go to sell the same player for £30m the next season, the cash you generate is all shown as revenue in year 2, but you have to write off the £20m remaining so its effectively only £10m profit from a PSR perspective.

All of our players from the last few seasons were bought for next to nowt so theres little to write off, except maybe isidor. Even then, selling Dan Neil for £10m would be the same as selling Isidor for say £13m (assuming he signed for £4m and is a year through his contract). Selling Hume for £10m would be close to 100% profit because there's probably only about £50k of his initial transfer fee to amortise under this years PSR calculations (he signed for ~ £200k on a 4.5 year deal).

Its a bigger deal at a club like Newcastle where they're signing players for £50-£60m. If you take Isak, figures are made up but say he cost £60m on a six year deal. He's still got £30m to write off on that transfer, so if they sell for £90m, its 'only' £60m profit in terms of PSR
 
Last edited:
The Beautiful Game said:
Being 'homegrown' has nothing to do with PSR. Under PSR a purchase is accounted for over the length of the contract. So signing a player for £25m is recorded as £5m in years one to five (Side note, this is why Chelsea were giving 8 year contracts, it meant a smaller hit on PSR - that's now banned). If you go to sell the same player for £30m the next season, the cash you generate is all shown as revenue in year 2, but you have to write off the £20m remaining so its effectively only £10m profit from a PSR perspective.

All of our players from the last few seasons were bought for next to nowt so theres little to write off, except maybe isidor. Even then, selling Dan Neil for £10m would be the same as selling Isidor for say £13m (assuming he signed for £4m and is a year through his contract). Selling Hume for £10m would be close to 100% profit because there's probably only about £50k of his initial transfer fee to amortise under this years PSR calculations (he signed for ~ £200k on a 4.5 year deal).

Its a bigger deal at a club like Newcastle where they're signing players for £50-£60m. If you take Isak, figures are made up but say he cost £60m on a six year deal. He's still got £30m to write off on that transfer, so if they sell for £90m, its 'only' £60m profit in terms of PSR
Click to expand...

thanks for info
 
sarboas said:
thanks for info
Click to expand...
No problem. Its quite interesting how I think it impacted the Xhaka deal. Xhaka moved to Leverkusen for 25m euros on a five year deal. Obviously older players value declines over time so our bid of 15m euros seemed fair on the face of it. Then when you consider Leverkusen's position, selling him two years in meant having to write off the 15m they need to account for on his transfer so from a PSR perspective, it was like a free transfer for them. We had to raise our bid above that so they'd make any profit for PSR.
 
I love Hume and would be more than happy if he stayed but there is a reason he has to put so many last ditch challenges in .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top