There is not a Premier League club prepared to admit it, but June 30 has become a date laden with significance.
The end of football’s financial year represents the final cut-off point for compliance, one last opportunity to tidy up a club’s books. Sell a player and solve your problems. Fail and fear the repercussions.
Advertisement
These final days of June and the business they bring can be the difference between conformity and a breach of the Premier League’s Profitability and Sustainability Rules (PSR).
Everton and Nottingham Forest can attest to that. Both have tried to offload an asset and retreat under the allowable losses threshold in summers past, but failing to do so eventually brought disciplinary hearings and points deductions.
This summer, clubs are seeking silver bullets in the transfer market again — but this time around their shared problems are leading to mutually beneficial solutions.
Aston Villa, Chelsea and Everton, three clubs thought to be sailing close to the PSR wind, have all spent the week negotiating deals that will strengthen their positions ahead of June 30.
Ian Maatsen, the talented left-back, will leave Chelsea to join Villa for £37.5million ($47.5m), while a deal had also been proposed for striker Jhon Duran to head in the opposite direction for a similar sum.
Villa have opened up a line with Everton, too. As well as lining up winger Lewis Dobbin from Goodison Park, they could send midfielder Tim Iroegbunam in the opposite direction. Two separate deals for sums in the same ballpark, this time about £9million.
Such deals and potential deals promise to fill holes in squads ahead of 2024-25 but, importantly, also improve PSR positions before June 30. Premier League rivals are becoming friends with benefits.
What is the relevance of June 30?
A date that looms on the horizon marks the end of English football’s financial year. Accounting periods typically run from July 1 to June 30 and the numbers that are posted matter.
Every club is allowed total losses of £105million over a rolling three-year period in the Premier League, adjusted for those clubs not in the division for all three years. Go north of that, as Everton (twice) and Nottingham Forest did, and there will be trouble.
Advertisement
All clubs will be aware of their positions — good, bad or indifferent — as the end of another financial year rolls around, with these closing weeks of June a last chance to remedy problems.
Forest’s disciplinary hearing, published in March, underlined the importance of June 30. Aware of their overspending in the period under assessment, Forest made attempts to sell star man Brennan Johnson to be compliant.
That sale, to Tottenham for £47.5million did not come until the final days of the summer window, too late to address a spending breach of £34.5m that brought an eventual four-point deduction.
Cards are being kept close to chests this summer but the business discussed by Aston Villa, Chelsea and Everton this week would indicate those three clubs are all open to improving their financial results in the next 10 days.
How do these deals benefit clubs?
If we start with the biggest — Maatsen’s move to Villa — it will be a significant boost to Chelsea. A youngster who joined aged 16, his book value will be close to zero. That £37.5million, therefore, can effectively be added to the profit column and immediately redress the losses Chelsea have incurred over the last three years.
Villa, meanwhile, do not need take the equivalent hit. That £37.5million can be amortised, or spread, over five years, meaning only £7.5million shows up on the books every year. That can also be amortised on a monthly basis to ensure almost none of the outlay shows up in the 2023-24 accounts.
Selling Duran would not have been as beneficial to Villa as the sale of Maatsen has been to Chelsea, but it would still have been a welcome windfall.
The business drawn up between Villa and Everton this week carries similar benefits.
In selling Dobbin to Villa, Everton will be able to book the entire fee as profit in their 2023-24 accounts, owing to the winger’s status as an academy graduate. Villa, meanwhile, are able to amortise the cost over the length of Dobbin’s contract. So a £10million purchase, for example, could be spread over five years, ensuring the player only shows up as £2million annual outlay.
Advertisement
Roles would be reversed in the Iroegbunam transfer. Everton could amortise the cost, while Villa book a useful profit on a player they signed from West Bromwich Albion two years ago without recommitting the sum to Dobbin in their own accounts. Both clubs win without losing a player.
There was a time when Dobbin and Iroegbunam, players with similar market values, would simply have been swapped. That option would still have been open for Villa and Everton but it is telling that the two transfers are being treated as separate transactions, independent of the other.
It all effectively amounts to helpful accounting ahead of June 30, replacing one asset with another for mutual benefit.
Is this kind of trading all within the rules?
There is nothing to stop clubs from buying and selling players with each other in any of these cases and the motives for doing so are irrelevant. Aston Villa, Chelsea and Everton can state it is business that benefits the make-up of their squad and any further advantages gained are incidental.
Any Premier League club, whether buyer or seller, would theoretically need to do is satisfy the regulations in place.
As a result of Newcastle United’s takeover by Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund (PIF) in 2021, rules were introduced to ensure all transactions would be checked to ensure they did not exceed “fair market value”. That was a move primarily focused on limiting how much Newcastle could secure through Saudi sponsorship deals but, as in the case of Allan Saint-Maximin’s £30million move to PIF-owned Al Ahli, also covered transfers — clubs with the same owner could not bail each other out with a price inflated for the purpose.
There has already been grumblings from within the Premier League over the definition of ‘fair market value’ and how it is judged, and that is particularly challenging with player valuations. It grows even more onerous when two unconnected clubs are doing business in an open market.
GO DEEPER
Dobbin and Iroegbunam are set to switch clubs - why do Villa and Everton want to sell to each other?
Has there ever been anything similar to this before?
The biggest trade to ever cause surprise perhaps involved Juventus and Barcelona in the summer of 2020.
Miralem Pjanic, who had just turned 30, was sold by Juventus to Barcelona for €60million (£51m $64m); while Arthur headed in the opposite direction for €72m (£61m; $77m). It would later transpire that only €12m (£10m; $13m) changed hands but both Juventus and Barcelona, facing huge financial pressures in the midst of the Covid pandemic, were able to book handsome profits. Juventus always argued the deal was legitimate and in breach of no rules.
Advertisement
That deal was eventually the most high-profile case of the 62 transfers investigated by the Italian Football Federation (FICG), with 42 involving Juventus. They were referred to as “mirror” deals and also included the 2019 trade when Danilo (€37m; £31m; $40m) joined Juventus and Joao Cancelo (€65m; £55m; $70m) moved to Manchester City.
The FICG’s case, which included a further 10 clubs, essentially collapsed due to the challenges of establishing the value of a footballer. A subsequent investigation into the club’s transfer dealings, though, found evidence of false accounting and saw Juventus docked 10 points.
The Pjanic and Arthur trade has become infamous but there is nothing to suggest any wrongdoing in the business proposed in the Premier League this summer.
GO DEEPER
Which clubs are going to spend in this summer's transfer window?
(Top photo: Ian Maatsen; by Glyn Kirk/AFP)