An air of desperation hung over a handful of Premier League clubs last summer. Accounting years were drawing to a close across the top division of English football and the pressure was on to book profits before it was too late. Player sales were a must if a profitability and sustainability rules (PSR) breach was to be avoided before June 30.
Newcastle United’s business back then was a microcosm of the chaos. They reluctantly agreed to sell Yankuba Minteh, their then teenage winger, to Brighton & Hove Albion for £30million before sanctioning the exit of Elliot Anderson, the homegrown forward, to Nottingham Forest for £35m.
“We had no other option,” their head coach Eddie Howe told reporters in October about those two departures. “We couldn’t breach PSR, couldn’t face a points deduction, and the only two deals we had on the table at that time were the two deals we did.”
Newcastle, who had spent £320million in the first two and a half years under their Saudi Arabian owners, did not want to sell either Minteh or Anderson. Nor, you suspect, did they want to pay Forest £20m for Odysseas Vlachodimos, a third-choice goalkeeper yet to feature for them in the Premier League under Howe. Anderson’s sale, though, was reliant on Forest, who had breached PSR last season and were close to the line again, getting something in return, so Newcastle had nowhere to turn.
Newcastle did not want to lose Minteh to Brighton (Mike Hewitt/Getty Images)
Others were at it, too, with Aston Villa, Everton, Chelsea and Leicester City all concocting their own mutually beneficial deals to chase compliance. Close to £200million, most of it “pure profit”, was collectively banked by those six clubs in June’s final weeks and Tuesday brought confirmation that the trading had been worth it.
A 14-day assessment period of 2023-24 accounts and PSR calculations had not raised red flags within the Premier League and, unlike last January, when Everton and Forest were both charged, there was no cause for disciplinary action to be triggered.
Leicester’s case remains more complex than others, with the Premier League still believing they are on the hook for at least one charge amid the legal challenges back and forth, but 2024, the year of the asterisk, has left its mark.
The three PSR charges heard last season — two for Everton and one for Forest — resulted in a combined 12 points being deducted, the kind of shock therapy that was difficult to ignore.
It may never be known just how close Newcastle and others came to going beyond their spending threshold last season. Clubs’ 2023-24 accounts, which are due to be filed by the end of March, will give us clues, but the absence of transparency in the PSR process makes it difficult to offer fully informed analysis.
Clubs instead have to be judged by their actions and those madcap days of late June revealed anxieties ultimately born out of the penalties handed to Everton and Forest a few months earlier. That jolted the whole of the Premier League, heightening motivation to find quick profits in the transfer market once the season had concluded.
Howe admitted as much — Newcastle had no wish to sell Minteh or Anderson. Certainly not both. But, as Howe, the front-facing figure in that organisation, accepts, there was “no other option” but to accept £65million in transfer fees for the duo if a PSR breach was to be avoided.
Were Chelsea as close to the edge? That is unclear but their compliance owed as much to the sale of two hotels which are part of the wider site at their Stamford Bridge stadium to other companies owned by BlueCo, Chelsea’s parent company, as it did the late sale of defender Ian Maatsen to Villa for £37.5million. Others did not have the luxury of property deals enhancing the numbers.
Maatsen’s transfer to Villa helped Chelsea comply with PSR, but not as much as the sale of two hotels (Matt McNulty/Getty Images)
PSR continues to have its vocal opponents, such as Villa co-owner Nassef Sawiris, who told the Financial Times in June that the regulations were inhibitive and “not good for football”, but last season served the warning that overspending would still carry a sporting cost. Everton and Forest became the bad boys nobody wanted to emulate.
That was obvious with the sudden business done in June, and the wariness has been extended into this season.
Manchester United, traditionally one of English football’s strongest financial forces, have made it clear they have little scope to strengthen new head coach Ruben Amorim’s hand after their heavy losses of recent times. Newcastle also remain bound by financial constraints, with only about £60million spent this season. Villa’s net spend for the season, meanwhile, stood at about £26million going into the current winter transfer window.
Those three clubs could have spent more but learnt last season that punishments would then be unavoidable down the road.
It would not be fitting to congratulate the Premier League on strong governance when 115 charges of financial wrongdoing still hang over four-in-a-row title winners Manchester City and Leicester’s case remains unresolved, but last season served notice that rules had to be adhered to. Points deductions would be in the post to any club not complying.
“The Premier League submits that the only proper sanction is a sporting sanction in the form of a deduction of points,” it argued in Everton’s first PSR hearing, which brought an initial 10-point penalty, later cut to six on appeal. That exact sentence was repeated when Forest faced an independent commission.
PSR has its inconsistencies and imperfections, and might well lead to more scrambled, incoherent transfer business before financial years are out at the end of every June.
But the past 12 months — and no fresh charges this week — have made it clear to clubs that it is a sanction to be taken seriously.
(Top photos: Getty Images)
