| Villa - PSR - Philogene 11:53 - Jan 9 with 1385 views | bsw72 |
I'm curious as to how the Philogene transfer will show for Villa . . . either way seems odd business for them.
- They sold him for £5M in 2023, which would have been (as a youth player) fully received as income in that year.
- Bought him back for £13M in 2024, but at this point would have been spread over a 5 year period, so would show as ~£2.6M out per year for next 5 years.
- Have now sold (fingers crossed) to us for say £20M, but I don't think he would now count as a home grown player under PSR rules, so that income for Villa / Ipswich has to show as £4.4M in/out over the next 4.5 years. So currently only a net £1.8M for Villa.
Either way Villa have managed to only make £10M profit on a youth player that they have sold for a total of £26M over the last 18 months, making only a handful of appearances. |  | | |  |
| Villa - PSR - Philogene on 11:58 - Jan 9 with 1312 views | tractorboy1978 |
For Villa it will show this year as an £8.3m profit on sale for PSR purposes!
£13m over 5 years is £2.6m per year. Only there 6 months so will only be 6 months amortisation = £1.3m. Held on their books at £11.7m. The full £20m received will hit the P&L account this year. |  | | |
| Villa - PSR - Philogene on 11:59 - Jan 9 with 1290 views | WeirdFishes |
Slightly off topic but people go over the ‘home grown’ aspect of PSR too much, the profit is all in relation to the fee paid to acquire them, nothing to do with the academy they came from. We would for example bank the same profit for Luke Woolfenden as we would for say Massimo Luongo. Even Davis who we paid £1.5m(?) for, we’d make significant profit for selling him at a good price. |  |
| |
| Villa - PSR - Philogene on 11:59 - Jan 9 with 1289 views | JakeITFC |
He won't have amortised as still in the same accounting year so they've in effect sold a £13m asset for £20m. They don't keep the asset on the books. |  | | |
| Villa - PSR - Philogene on 12:01 - Jan 9 with 1242 views | bsw72 |
| Villa - PSR - Philogene on 11:58 - Jan 9 by tractorboy1978 |
For Villa it will show this year as an £8.3m profit on sale for PSR purposes!
£13m over 5 years is £2.6m per year. Only there 6 months so will only be 6 months amortisation = £1.3m. Held on their books at £11.7m. The full £20m received will hit the P&L account this year. |
Ah - of course - forgot that sales are fully accounted in year of sale LESS the outstanding amount on books. Fully amortized (not depreciated - edit) asset effectively. [Post edited 9 Jan 12:06]
| | | |
| Villa - PSR - Philogene on 12:09 - Jan 9 with 1139 views | SmithersJones |
| Villa - PSR - Philogene on 11:58 - Jan 9 by tractorboy1978 |
For Villa it will show this year as an £8.3m profit on sale for PSR purposes!
£13m over 5 years is £2.6m per year. Only there 6 months so will only be 6 months amortisation = £1.3m. Held on their books at £11.7m. The full £20m received will hit the P&L account this year. |
I wonder whether the transfer fee paid to Hull is treated as two separate items: (1) a fee of £18m, ammortised over say 5 years, and (2) a lump sum received of [whatever their sell on was] which hits the P&L this year. If Hull had sold to us then Villa’s sell on wouldn’t have been ammortised so they may argue that it’s unfair to not take it all this year when they bought him back. Given Villa’s PSR struggles I’m sure they’d be scraping every penny into 24/25 if they could.
Obviously if they sell him in the same financial year it makes less difference but I don’t subscribe to the view that they only bought him to sell him on, so at the time they bought him the accounting treatment would have been a significant point. | | | |
| Villa - PSR - Philogene on 12:13 - Jan 9 with 1073 views | NeverSayDie |
| Villa - PSR - Philogene on 11:58 - Jan 9 by tractorboy1978 |
For Villa it will show this year as an £8.3m profit on sale for PSR purposes!
£13m over 5 years is £2.6m per year. Only there 6 months so will only be 6 months amortisation = £1.3m. Held on their books at £11.7m. The full £20m received will hit the P&L account this year. |
The principle of the calculation is spot on, but they activated the matching clause and our bid was £18 million, yes they get 30% back via the sell on clause, but I'd imagine the Amortisation will have to be based on the £18 million figure to keep PSR happy. |  | | |
| Villa - PSR - Philogene on 12:19 - Jan 9 with 988 views | SmithersJones |
| Villa - PSR - Philogene on 12:13 - Jan 9 by NeverSayDie |
The principle of the calculation is spot on, but they activated the matching clause and our bid was £18 million, yes they get 30% back via the sell on clause, but I'd imagine the Amortisation will have to be based on the £18 million figure to keep PSR happy. |
As above, this will have been in Villa’s interests too. | | | |
| Villa - PSR - Philogene on 12:20 - Jan 9 with 976 views | NeverSayDie |
| Villa - PSR - Philogene on 12:09 - Jan 9 by SmithersJones |
I wonder whether the transfer fee paid to Hull is treated as two separate items: (1) a fee of £18m, ammortised over say 5 years, and (2) a lump sum received of [whatever their sell on was] which hits the P&L this year. If Hull had sold to us then Villa’s sell on wouldn’t have been ammortised so they may argue that it’s unfair to not take it all this year when they bought him back. Given Villa’s PSR struggles I’m sure they’d be scraping every penny into 24/25 if they could.
Obviously if they sell him in the same financial year it makes less difference but I don’t subscribe to the view that they only bought him to sell him on, so at the time they bought him the accounting treatment would have been a significant point. |
If I'd seen this as I was typing, could have saved myself the bother, lol.
The two items, as you say, should be treated separately for PSR purposes, so purchase price will be £18 million (the clubs can agree whatever they want between themselves to satisfy the sell on etc). | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
