Bilal El Khannouss (Stuttgart loan, official)

[studentofthegame]

9 hours ago, Muzzy_no7 said:

Soton get absolutely ridiculous fees for Fernandes and Dibling meanwhile we scrape £40m for Mads and Bilal. 

Yeah this is the damning issue, Ipswich getting nigh on 40 for Hutchinson too

 

Hutchinson 5 G+A

Fernandes 6 G+A

Dibling 2 G+A

BEK 5 G+A

 

Dibling is 19 and the other 3 are 21 so age doesn't really factor

 

Watching them all on the pitch I have seen more from BEK than the others, yet we are the one who somehow manages to end up with a shit deal despite the buying club very publicly just receiving an absolutely absurd fee for a striker who played well for 6 months

[Finnegan]

If there's a loan fee that covers his amortisation (which there almost has to be) then it'll explain the lower agreed transfer fee. 

 

Also, frankly, I don't mind it being a loan if we still get to bring some people in today? 

 

If its only a buy option, it's theoretically possible that he smashes it this year, attracts interest from bigger clubs than Stuttgart, turns them down and we sell him for 40 odd to someone. 

 

[studentofthegame]

1 minute ago, Finnegan said:

If there's a loan fee that covers his amortisation (which there almost has to be) then it'll explain the lower agreed transfer fee. 

 

Also, frankly, I don't mind it being a loan if we still get to bring some people in today? 

 

If its only a buy option, it's theoretically possible that he smashes it this year, attracts interest from bigger clubs than Stuttgart, turns them down and we sell him for 40 odd to someone. 

 

In that case they would just trigger the option and then sell him to the bigger club and pocket the profit

 

I am pretty sure in these deals with options the player agrees a contract in advance with the buying club

[Ric Flair]

1 minute ago, Scotch said:

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Like I said, I'm not 100% on how this all works but surely if the deal is £5m loan fee this year and £25m if/when the option is activated at the end of his loan, the 25m goes on to next years book? 

Yes thats correct, but not sure why that benefits us? If we book it all this season then we still have all that headroom as its a rolling 3 year PSR period. So if we break even 25/26 by loaning Bilal or are £10-15m in the clear if it was a straight permanent this summer then we start 26/27 3 year period in a better position but the net gain is not any different.

 

There's an argument that £25m next summer is worth less than it is if you book it now but given the way football transfers operate, the inflationary element of that is less meaningful as most business.

 

If this isn't a straight up obligation and requires certain conditions to activate then it is a terrible deal.

[Ric Flair]

4 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

If there's a loan fee that covers his amortisation (which there almost has to be) then it'll explain the lower agreed transfer fee. 

 

Also, frankly, I don't mind it being a loan if we still get to bring some people in today? 

 

If its only a buy option, it's theoretically possible that he smashes it this year, attracts interest from bigger clubs than Stuttgart, turns them down and we sell him for 40 odd to someone. 

 

My issue is we have 1 day to get players in, less to get players in in January if we need it too. It's a pony deal, we've been had once again. When you add this to the Hermansen deal it's hard to defend, even though some will.

[Sol thewall Bamba]

14 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

How? Lets say we comply for PSR for 25/26 = break even with the loan fee for Bilal and then book £15m profit in 26/27.

 

If you add it in to this year then you have a net gain of +£10-15m PSR 25/26. That doesn't reset to zero for 26/27. 

Make £6/7m profit now, or £11/12m next summer plus whatever loan fee we get for this season. But like I said before it only really works if they're covering all his wages.

Edited 1 September 2025 by Sol thewall Bamba

[Finnegan]

3 minutes ago, studentofthegame said:

In that case they would just trigger the option and then sell him to the bigger club and pocket the profit

 

I am pretty sure in these deals with options the player agrees a contract in advance with the buying club

 

Obligation they'll have to agree terms. An option really is just that, it's an agreement between clubs over a future price. 

 

There's no guarantee Bilal would agree to it and definitely no reason he'd let Stuttgart buy him just to sell him the same day which would be a contractual and legal mess. 

 

If its an option only there's no reason to stop, say, Chelsea offering to buy him next summer and is driving up their price. 

 

[Guest BlueApple]

11 minutes ago, studentofthegame said:

Yeah this is the damning issue, Ipswich getting nigh on 40 for Hutchinson too

 

Hutchinson 5 G+A

Fernandes 6 G+A

Dibling 2 G+A

BEK 5 G+A

 

Dibling is 19 and the other 3 are 21 so age doesn't really factor

 

Watching them all on the pitch I have seen more from BEK than the others, yet we are the one who somehow manages to end up with a shit deal despite the buying club very publicly just receiving an absolutely absurd fee for a striker who played well for 6 months

English tax.

 

If they have a good season then they know they can get more money if sold to an English Champions League club for shit loads because they'll be homegrown. 

Edited 1 September 2025 by BlueApple
Wasnt clear!

[Finnegan]

2 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

My issue is we have 1 day to get players in, less to get players in in January if we need it too. It's a pony deal, we've been had once again. When you add this to the Hermansen deal it's hard to defend, even though some will.

 

It's not a good deal, but it's just also not a significantly worse deal than everyone was about to accept. 

 

And it looks to me like we were always going to wait to dead line day to do a bit of business anyway? 

 

There seems to be a handful of genuinely credible rumours this year which makes a bit of a change for us? 

 

Think we'll see at least two come in today, maybe three. 

 

[CloudFox]

2 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

 

Obligation they'll have to agree terms. An option really is just that, it's an agreement between clubs over a future price. 

 

There's no guarantee Bilal would agree to it and definitely no reason he'd let Stuttgart buy him just to sell him the same day which would be a contractual and legal mess. 

 

If its an option only there's no reason to stop, say, Chelsea offering to buy him next summer and is driving up their price. 

 

Building on this (and maybe I'm taking it a  stretch too far), given how BEK and his agent have acted so far, even if it is an "obligation", if he performs well and a bigger club comes in for him...you'd expect them to find a way out of signing for Stuttgart in favour of the other club.

[Scotch]

6 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

Yes thats correct, but not sure why that benefits us? If we book it all this season then we still have all that headroom as its a rolling 3 year PSR period. So if we break even 25/26 by loaning Bilal or are £10-15m in the clear if it was a straight permanent this summer then we start 26/27 3 year period in a better position but the net gain is not any different.

 

There's an argument that £25m next summer is worth less than it is if you book it now but given the way football transfers operate, the inflationary element of that is less meaningful as most business.

 

If this isn't a straight up obligation and requires certain conditions to activate then it is a terrible deal.

Ah right. I see what your saying. So it doesn't matter when the money is brought in, this season or next, it still counts towards next seasons PSR because of the rolling 3 years? 

 

Assuming though that the obligation/options or whatever it is, IS activated, a combined fee of £30m is a decent deal? Especially given that the player hurt our negotiating stance by throwing a tantrum...

[Tommy Fresh]

15 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

Yes thats correct, but not sure why that benefits us? If we book it all this season then we still have all that headroom as its a rolling 3 year PSR period. So if we break even 25/26 by loaning Bilal or are £10-15m in the clear if it was a straight permanent this summer then we start 26/27 3 year period in a better position but the net gain is not any different.

 

There's an argument that £25m next summer is worth less than it is if you book it now but given the way football transfers operate, the inflationary element of that is less meaningful as most business.

 

If this isn't a straight up obligation and requires certain conditions to activate then it is a terrible deal.

But say we don't bring in any huge fees next summer, then that potentially becomes an issue a few years down the line.

[Donwebbio]

15 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

Yes thats correct, but not sure why that benefits us? If we book it all this season then we still have all that headroom as its a rolling 3 year PSR period. So if we break even 25/26 by loaning Bilal or are £10-15m in the clear if it was a straight permanent this summer then we start 26/27 3 year period in a better position but the net gain is not any different.

 

There's an argument that £25m next summer is worth less than it is if you book it now but given the way football transfers operate, the inflationary element of that is less meaningful as most business.

 

If this isn't a straight up obligation and requires certain conditions to activate then it is a terrible deal.

Unless there is an onus on balancing out profit/loss each year to give the effect of a better run outfit. Could make sense through the optics of demonstrating to the authorities that we have our house in order. If KP were looking to sell you would think they would want the cash in now with as much up front as possible - especially with our Aussie payday loans.

[ChrisFilter]

37 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

 

Being an extra £10-15m off this year doesn't alter next year unless we spend it. We've been had.

There must be some logic to it. I know we are mired in incompetence, but they’re not so stupid as to not have a rationale. 
 

[brookfox]

There’s something incredibly dull about seeing the word amortisation related to football transfers. Chelsea seem to have twigged on that football is now basically two games; kicking a ball about and trading Panini stickers for profit.

[mazarron fox]

41 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

 

Being an extra £10-15m off this year doesn't alter next year unless we spend it. We've been had.

Of course it does because it’s a rolling 3 years so whatever goes into next year is wriggle room moving forward. A maybe player with 33 games and 2 goals and lots of attitude yet some of you  think we should be making 15 mil profit in one year? Far from being had we have done well binning the 🤡.

[Dahnsouff]

6 minutes ago, brookfox said:

There’s something incredibly dull about seeing the word amortisation related to football transfers. Chelsea seem to have twigged on that football is now basically two games; kicking a ball about and trading Panini stickers for profit.

Very true, but to trade stickers you got be in the right crowd....

[Vlad the Fox]

Just a thought, but next season we’ll lose a number of players who are out of contract so we will need to spend to rebuild the squad. In 3 years time this summers dealing will drop off the psr cycle. Does dropping the £25m into next years books protect us from next years spending causing us psr issues further down the line?

[Ric Flair]

Just now, mazarron fox said:

Of course it does because it’s a rolling 3 years so whatever goes into next year is wriggle room moving forward. A maybe player with 33 games and 2 goals and lots of attitude yet some of you  think we should be making 15 mil profit in one year? Far from being had we have done well binning the 🤡.

Won't effect 26/27 or 27/28 but it would in theory effect 28/29. I'm looking at this from an urgency perspective of what we need to do to rebuild but i'm being too naive, we aren't going to spend the profit anyway. Be lucky if we get more than 1 loan player in today.

[Ricey]

It’s badly under market value. A young, creative player who shone at times in the Premier League has to be close £40m, as proven by Fernandes, Dibling and Hutchinson.
 

I can only assume that clubs know we are in the shit and desperate. 

[dannythefox]

37 minutes ago, Scotch said:

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Like I said, I'm not 100% on how this all works but surely if the deal is £5m loan fee this year and £25m if/when the option is activated at the end of his loan, the 25m goes on to next years book? 

This is how I understand it. Basically it’s a 25m head start on next years books which actually is a good deal. Either way we don’t want a player here who doesn’t want to be here and we’ve made a profit on him. We’re in this situation because players have walked for free, now people are moaning we’re selling them. 😆

[Chelmofox]

2 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

Very true, but to trade stickers you got be in the right crowd....

Helps if you are bed with those who make the stickers too …….

[FrankieADZ]

glad its done, off he goes the ratty moaning baby bitch

 

we move on

[Ric Flair]

6 minutes ago, dannythefox said:

This is how I understand it. Basically it’s a 25m head start on next years books which actually is a good deal. Either way we don’t want a player here who doesn’t want to be here and we’ve made a profit on him. We’re in this situation because players have walked for free, now people are moaning we’re selling them. 😆

Will still have £11m book value so it's a £14m head start.

[Ric Flair]

OK, I stand corrected. Just had a long battle with chatgpt on this and apparently you don't carry profit forward for PSR. There is maximum allowable losses each year and a 3 year total but if you are +£15m in Y1 it doesn't mean you can be -£28m in Y2 unless across the 3 years it's within the £39m maximum amount in the Championship.

 

Is that correct? There's no benefit to making a profit for PSR for future years? My heads fell off, that is not how I understood it at all, unless the EFL is different. In which case this does make sense.