| Question about Eze sell-on clause 21:54 - May 20 with 2301 views | Logman |
If he goes in a swap deal - for example with Jack Grealish - with no money being exchanged, would there be no sell-on fee for us ? |  | | |  |
| Question about Eze sell-on clause on 22:00 - May 20 with 2239 views | danehoop |
we get nothing. |  |
| Never knowingly understood |
| |
| Question about Eze sell-on clause on 22:26 - May 20 with 2086 views | KensalT |
The players will still have a transfer value that will be booked for accounting purposes.
In the past clubs have swapped players for inflated fees as a way to work the FFP/P&S rules and get an instant cash boost in the accounts:
https://www.espn.co.uk/football/story/_/id/40476819/premier-league-clubs-psr-rul
Essentially it boils down to what the selling and buying clubs agree. Palace could shaft us by agreeing that both Eze and Grealish are free transfers. But it would be in the interests of both clubs to go the other way and put both deals through for greatly inflated fees. For City it would give their finances a boost when they are under scrutiny and it would allow Palace to go on a spending spree to cope with the extra demands of European football.
So with a bit of luck it might work in our favour and result in an even bigger windfall than we might otherwise have expected. | | | |
| Question about Eze sell-on clause on 22:29 - May 20 with 2074 views | Northernr |
We pulled a not dissimilar thing on Spurs who had a 50% sell on with Luongo at Swindon. Bought him and Gladwin together, weighted it massively in favour of Gladwin, Swindon got paid the same, Spurs did not. |  | | |
| Question about Eze sell-on clause on 23:32 - May 20 with 1936 views | DannyPaddox |
In the expample given ie Eze being swapped for Grealish we would have to give Man City up to £20 million. It’s a hard life, that’s the rules, and there’s nothing we can do about it. |  | | |
| Question about Eze sell-on clause on 23:45 - May 20 with 1906 views | Match82 |
| Question about Eze sell-on clause on 22:29 - May 20 by Northernr |
We pulled a not dissimilar thing on Spurs who had a 50% sell on with Luongo at Swindon. Bought him and Gladwin together, weighted it massively in favour of Gladwin, Swindon got paid the same, Spurs did not. |
So in this case it would have to be Eze plus random unknown Palace player for Grealish plus random unknown Man City player where both random players are happily valued at £50m, something like that? |  | | |
| Question about Eze sell-on clause on 06:20 - May 21 with 1638 views | davman |
Face it. We do not get nice things. Either he will not leave them as they are now in Europe OR such a swap deal will happen.
No more money. Lower mid table (hopefully), it is for us 'til we drop a league. |  |
| |
| Question about Eze sell-on clause on 11:53 - May 21 with 1280 views | nick_hammersmith |
| Question about Eze sell-on clause on 23:45 - May 20 by Match82 |
So in this case it would have to be Eze plus random unknown Palace player for Grealish plus random unknown Man City player where both random players are happily valued at £50m, something like that? |
Yep, they'll come in for him and Will Hughes with the same weighting... :( |  | | |
| Question about Eze sell-on clause on 12:00 - May 21 with 1238 views | QPR_John |
As I understand it there were higher bids for Eze but we accepted Palace’s bid because of the add ons particularly a very good sell on clause. Surely the club would have factored in a possible swap deal that Palace could make and mitigated against any outcome. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Question about Eze sell-on clause on 12:38 - May 21 with 1149 views | nick_hammersmith |
I noticed Eze making a phone gesture after he scores, is this a "come and get me" sort of thing now? | | | |
| Question about Eze sell-on clause on 12:43 - May 21 with 1115 views | Rs_Holy |
| Question about Eze sell-on clause on 22:00 - May 20 by danehoop |
we get nothing. |
how very QPR :( |  | | |
| Question about Eze sell-on clause on 12:59 - May 21 with 1042 views | Lblock |
| Question about Eze sell-on clause on 22:00 - May 20 by danehoop |
we get nothing. |
Possibly wrong.
As noted by NorthernR below I believe we were trail blazers in stitching up Levy on this one which is unheard of.
Since then most Contracts with this sell on as an add on base it on the "assessed market value of" as grounds for agreement.
It's a bit more difficult and ends up with bartering and that should worry us looking at our transfer negotiations performance in the past.
This is what I've been told on sell on's in any case |  |
| Cherish and enjoy life.... this ain't no dress rehearsal |
| |
| Question about Eze sell-on clause on 13:01 - May 21 with 1030 views | DavieQPR |
As stupid as the Prem is do you not think they are wise nowadays to this sort of P&S manipulation. Agents would not accept getting nothing also possible VAT and Tax evasion. |  | | |
| Question about Eze sell-on clause on 13:21 - May 21 with 964 views | BrizR |
| Question about Eze sell-on clause on 22:26 - May 20 by KensalT |
The players will still have a transfer value that will be booked for accounting purposes.
In the past clubs have swapped players for inflated fees as a way to work the FFP/P&S rules and get an instant cash boost in the accounts:
https://www.espn.co.uk/football/story/_/id/40476819/premier-league-clubs-psr-rul
Essentially it boils down to what the selling and buying clubs agree. Palace could shaft us by agreeing that both Eze and Grealish are free transfers. But it would be in the interests of both clubs to go the other way and put both deals through for greatly inflated fees. For City it would give their finances a boost when they are under scrutiny and it would allow Palace to go on a spending spree to cope with the extra demands of European football.
So with a bit of luck it might work in our favour and result in an even bigger windfall than we might otherwise have expected. |
That isn't quite the same thing. The classic 'swap deal' is just that, an actual swap - you've got this player, we've got this player, let's change them around. There'll be accounting off the back of it, but it wouldn't help us, because no money would change hands. They also just don't really happen much, even though the press loves suggesting them as rumours; it's rare that two clubs have exactly the player that the other needs and values them as being much the same. Even the Zlatan/Eto'o swap involved Barca paying €40m on top.
What these clubs were doing (as the article outlines) is two separate deals. You buy my player for the amount I need to show a profit today, and I'll buy your player for what you need to show a profit tomorrow. It relies on quirks of financial reporting standards - because academy players have little or nil value, the sale value is basically all profit, and you can book it immediately, while your cost for the player coming the other way is amortised over the contract length so it has a much smaller impact. You also don't have to pay them much by way of actual wages, because they're academy kids with no track record; they're on stupid money for 22 year olds with no real experience, but they're cheap in terms of the wage structure of these clubs.
Neither City nor Palace have the same incentives here; these are both players they paid fees for, and while they're probably amortised down a fair bit now, they're not worth nothing. Palace don't have PSR issues, so they have no need to try and get a quick hit of paper profits; they'd also be picking up twin burdens in the other direction because Grealish will want the kind of wages he's on at City. £15m of pure profit for a player you don't rate in return for having to take on a low-wage player that you also don't rate on a five-year deal is a nice way to fiddle the figures if you're riding the line; £100m for a high-wage player does you no PSR favours in the short term and locks you into a long and expensive contract in the future. Grealish is 29; do you think a club as astute with transfers as Palace is going to give him a five-year deal to do City a favour? | | | |
| Question about Eze sell-on clause on 13:46 - May 21 with 918 views | CLAREMAN1995 |
Its now or never I feel these last 2 weeks have really put a spotlight on his brilliance and his incredible humble attitude is such a breath of fresh air .
Palace sold Olise when it probably should have been Eze but that could turn out to be a master stroke on his present form.
Man City are facing a big cleanout of aging stars they must be getting ready to try for him unless his defensive frailtities are a red flag for Pep
We deserve nice things after this last few months |  | | |
| Question about Eze sell-on clause on 13:51 - May 21 with 906 views | KensalT |
| Question about Eze sell-on clause on 13:21 - May 21 by BrizR |
That isn't quite the same thing. The classic 'swap deal' is just that, an actual swap - you've got this player, we've got this player, let's change them around. There'll be accounting off the back of it, but it wouldn't help us, because no money would change hands. They also just don't really happen much, even though the press loves suggesting them as rumours; it's rare that two clubs have exactly the player that the other needs and values them as being much the same. Even the Zlatan/Eto'o swap involved Barca paying €40m on top.
What these clubs were doing (as the article outlines) is two separate deals. You buy my player for the amount I need to show a profit today, and I'll buy your player for what you need to show a profit tomorrow. It relies on quirks of financial reporting standards - because academy players have little or nil value, the sale value is basically all profit, and you can book it immediately, while your cost for the player coming the other way is amortised over the contract length so it has a much smaller impact. You also don't have to pay them much by way of actual wages, because they're academy kids with no track record; they're on stupid money for 22 year olds with no real experience, but they're cheap in terms of the wage structure of these clubs.
Neither City nor Palace have the same incentives here; these are both players they paid fees for, and while they're probably amortised down a fair bit now, they're not worth nothing. Palace don't have PSR issues, so they have no need to try and get a quick hit of paper profits; they'd also be picking up twin burdens in the other direction because Grealish will want the kind of wages he's on at City. £15m of pure profit for a player you don't rate in return for having to take on a low-wage player that you also don't rate on a five-year deal is a nice way to fiddle the figures if you're riding the line; £100m for a high-wage player does you no PSR favours in the short term and locks you into a long and expensive contract in the future. Grealish is 29; do you think a club as astute with transfers as Palace is going to give him a five-year deal to do City a favour? |
The point I was making was that clubs have in the past deliberately booked inflated fees in "swap" scenarios because it gives them a short-term financial advantage.
Even assuming Palace were willing to swap Eze for Grealish (and I certainly wouldn't) I think it could potentially help both clubs to push the deal through on inflated valuations.
I didn't say they had to do it or would do it, just that it might benefit both of them to do so.
You make some very good points about why Palace might not want to do it. You are right to say both City and Palace paid fees for these players and would lose some of the value back to us and Villa respectively. You are also right to say Palace don't have PSR issues and don't need to do it.
But at the same time Palace have just qualified for the Europa League (assuming Lyon don't also qualify and muddy the waters) and we have seen several English clubs struggle in the past with balancing Europa League campaigns with their regular PL commitments. Palace might look at the examples of Bolton, Stoke, Burnley etc and decide a bit of squad strengthening right now would be a high priority.
On balance I don't think swapping Grealish for Eze would be good business for Palace. And to be honest I would be surprised if they parted with their best player ahead of their first season in Europe. But if they were tempted by this deal I think there are more reasons to inflate the "fees" rather than trying to do it on the cheap.
But I'm not an accountant. If someone who is tells me different then fair enough. | | | |
| Question about Eze sell-on clause on 15:50 - May 21 with 747 views | kensalriser |
| Question about Eze sell-on clause on 13:01 - May 21 by DavieQPR |
As stupid as the Prem is do you not think they are wise nowadays to this sort of P&S manipulation. Agents would not accept getting nothing also possible VAT and Tax evasion. |
I don't know if player sales attract normal VAT but even assuming they do it wouldn't make any difference as VAT registered businesses claim back output VAT. And most clubs are loss making so corporation tax is unlikely to be an issue. |  |
| |
| Question about Eze sell-on clause on 22:08 - May 21 with 396 views | BristolR |
Spuds in CL next season helpful do we think? Levy must know he needs to unlock the safe |  | | |
| Question about Eze sell-on clause on 22:50 - May 21 with 329 views | BrizR |
| Question about Eze sell-on clause on 13:51 - May 21 by KensalT |
The point I was making was that clubs have in the past deliberately booked inflated fees in "swap" scenarios because it gives them a short-term financial advantage.
Even assuming Palace were willing to swap Eze for Grealish (and I certainly wouldn't) I think it could potentially help both clubs to push the deal through on inflated valuations.
I didn't say they had to do it or would do it, just that it might benefit both of them to do so.
You make some very good points about why Palace might not want to do it. You are right to say both City and Palace paid fees for these players and would lose some of the value back to us and Villa respectively. You are also right to say Palace don't have PSR issues and don't need to do it.
But at the same time Palace have just qualified for the Europa League (assuming Lyon don't also qualify and muddy the waters) and we have seen several English clubs struggle in the past with balancing Europa League campaigns with their regular PL commitments. Palace might look at the examples of Bolton, Stoke, Burnley etc and decide a bit of squad strengthening right now would be a high priority.
On balance I don't think swapping Grealish for Eze would be good business for Palace. And to be honest I would be surprised if they parted with their best player ahead of their first season in Europe. But if they were tempted by this deal I think there are more reasons to inflate the "fees" rather than trying to do it on the cheap.
But I'm not an accountant. If someone who is tells me different then fair enough. |
I am! | | | |
| Question about Eze sell-on clause on 23:01 - May 21 with 295 views | KensalT |
| Question about Eze sell-on clause on 22:50 - May 21 by BrizR |
I am! |
Can't argue with that :-) | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
