Bilal El Khannouss (Stuttgart loan, official)

[Sly]

1 minute ago, Dan said:

If that deal is true then we would quite literally be better off to have never signed him.

 

This means we're locked into all of the potential downside. Say he flops at Stuttgart we get him back with his tail between his legs. If he does well there, we just get our money back for a post relegation level fee, nominal profit of which we just paid on his wages anyway.

 

It's totally amateurish. I think keeping him here despite his sulking, chancing he has a change of heart trumps this deal. It stinks.

He’s clearly got ability but it’s not like he set the world alight with goals and assists.

 

He‘s less Payet and more like a Seri! Loads of ability but output is lacking. 

[st albans fox]

Disappointed to be right on the sort of fee we’re likely to get for him in the end 

I mean it’s even lower than I thought we’d manage 

 

wonder if we tried to tell him he’d have to stay based on the offers and that’s when he kicked off. And we didn’t have the stomach for the fight. 

 

[FoxinNotts]

3 minutes ago, Hamilton Fox said:

This makes no sense in that so what if we

have already complied with it? It doesn’t mean you suddenly give away your most valuable players on shitty loan deals 

Unfortunately it would appear that we now in a position with Bilal, that he has to go this window. It's probably the deal on the table that hurts us the least.

[Jimmy]

so many conflicting reports about the deal who ****ing knows

[moore_94]

3 minutes ago, LVFox said:

First thoughts the same as you all, and then I remembered that I was on here at the start of the summer saying he wouldn’t play championship football and best we could hope for was a loan to the continent and hope we see him next season back in the prem.

 

A) clear he wants to go
B) apparently it’s technically with an option but very likely they are met, so pushes profit into the next year instead of this one (which is fine after JJ and Kasey sales)
C) if it doesn’t get triggered…we still have Bilal

 

3 minutes ago, FoxesWalk said:

It suggests we are compliant this year already and that we want the fee in next years accounts, and there will be a further 5.25m off his book value by then… 

 

The thinnest of silver linings? 

Would it go into next years accounts though?

 

They would need to take up the option before his loan contract ends which would be before the next PSR period would start

[Dahnsouff]

So he signed in a 4 year deal at 21m each year detracting 5.5m from his book value.

1 year has elapsed already, so his book value is 16.5, and after the loan, his book value will be 11m (During the loan we pay no wages)

So they could buy him for 25m when his book value is 11m therefore we have spent 11m (of his book value)  plus wages.

 

Surely I have this wrong and should just put down the wine and go to bed???

 

note - maths sucks ass, but you get the idea I hope

Edited 31 August 2025 by Dahnsouff

[Sly]

12 minutes ago, MGLCFC said:

Wouldn't a loan fee of £5m and wages say £2m, gives us £7m to spend, which would equate to £28m on 4 year deals?

We’d still be in a negative position for PSR like this. 

[Jimmy]

Just now, moore_94 said:

 

Would it go into next years accounts though?

 

They would need to take up the option before his loan contract ends which would be before the next PSR period would start

I would imagine it would, they are probably doing this to put the fee on their accounts next year as well, if its a loan

[LVFox]

1 minute ago, moore_94 said:

 

Would it go into next years accounts though?

 

They would need to take up the option before his loan contract ends which would be before the next PSR period would start

It’s a good point. Didn’t we do similar with Abdul but push him back to 24/25 accounts? After his loan expired 

[Guest]

Is this the sort of swamp-draining everyone was after?

[Sly]

1 minute ago, Dahnsouff said:

So he signed in a 4 year deal at 21m each year detracting 5.5m from his book value.

1 year has elapsed already, so his book value is 16.5, and after the loan, his book value will be 11m (During the loan we pay no wages)

So they could buy him for 25m when his book value is 11m therefore we have spent 11m (of his book value)  plus wages.

 

Surely I have this wrong and should just put down the wine and go to bed???

Depends if they are covering the wages. 
 

He’ll likely be on a fair wedge. 

[sdb]

Rudkin did some sort of deal with the devil in 2016 didn't he. We're living in purgatory forever more now.

[Dahnsouff]

Just now, Sly said:

Depends if they are covering the wages. 
 

He’ll likely be on a fair wedge. 

Even so, it does not effect his book value

[Cropwellfox]

Just now, LVFox said:

It’s a good point. Didn’t we do similar with Abdul but push him back to 24/25 accounts? After his loan expired 

Think we did yes, we will probably never know but if we can book a loan fee, dispose of the wages and then secure a fee against a lower PSR book value it’s not that bad a deal for a rat who’s downed his limited tools

[TheGoldenGod]

To save you all time you dont need to be an accountant or mathematician to know its a shite deal...which I said hours ago and got some arsey response by some on here.

[kenny]

8 minutes ago, FoxesWalk said:

It suggests we are compliant this year already and that we want the fee in next years accounts, and there will be a further 5.25m off his book value by then… 

 

The thinnest of silver linings? 

It's already been said by others, but we wouldn't be making a profit on him, so there would be no profit % to pay to gent.

 

It could be a shrewd move.

[st albans fox]

Just now, moore_94 said:

 

Would it go into next years accounts though?

 

They would need to take up the option before his loan contract ends which would be before the next PSR period would start

Possibly  Correct 

although the contract could be worded that they are obliged to buy him on 1st July once his loan contract has expired on. 30 June 

 

Because the fee isn’t great, it’s not clear whether the loan makes it likely we are/arent  psr compliant. The loan fee will negate the amortisation this season so loan or buy not much different in psr terms. 

[egg_fried_rice]

Rancid

[Jattdogg]

Wish my problems came down to being paid millions by either club

[Dahnsouff]

Just now, TheGoldenGod said:

To save you all time you dont need to be an accountant or mathematician to know its a shite deal...which I said hours ago and got some arsey response by some on here.

So more super helpful shit throwing helps how? 
Would like to consider this deal beyond throwing muck if that’s ok with you…

[VLC86]

3 minutes ago, Guest said:

Is this the sort of swamp-draining everyone was after?

Yep, we were all absolutely desperate to loan out players.

[murphy]

3 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

So he signed in a 4 year deal at 21m each year detracting 5.5m from his book value.

1 year has elapsed already, so his book value is 16.5, and after the loan, his book value will be 11m (During the loan we pay no wages)

So they could buy him for 25m when his book value is 11m therefore we have spent 11m (of his book value)  plus wages.

 

Surely I have this wrong and should just put down the wine and go to bed???

 

note - maths sucks ass, but you get the idea I hope

Well 21/4 = 5.25 not 5.5, but otherwise... 

[MPH]

I actually said loan deal a few weeks ago but was way off with the club.i said spurs

[Sly]

Just now, Dahnsouff said:

Even so, it does not effect his book value

Impacts us from a PSR point of view though.
 

If he’s getting paid £2.6m per year and we only get £5m for a loan fee and no wage coverage. We’re technically at a £2.85m loss for the year.
 

Next season would be profit if we sold and they actually make it official. however we are a mess financially, so we’d be better taking a lower value sale and tidying up the wages. 

[Dahnsouff]

Just now, murphy said:

Well 21/4 = 5.25 not 5.5, but otherwise... 

I did say my maths was ass (was to lazy to correct) so there is that.