Bilal El Khannouss (Stuttgart loan, official)

[Number 6]

3 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

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.

Yeh I think this is an issue with the three year structure - you actually want to smooth out annual performance so that you don't have feast and famine years. It was our big issue with the two years of massive losses. In theory you want to roughly hit the loss limit every year.

 

It will be interesting for Brighton soon on this regard because they had a year with like £120m profit. They can't go have a year of £150m losses next though because there is a 3 year block in the future which includes the big loss, but not the big profit.

[Claudio Fannieri]

56 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

However all of the others signed for English premier league clubs, we instead have had to strike a deal with a German club who traditionally don’t pay out as high fees as they do in England with the exception of Bayern. 
 

I think BEK is a bit of a red flag in England, which has hampered us in our ability to secure a high end fee. I have a feeling he will be agitating for a move somewhere else in another 2 years time. 

[mazarron fox]

53 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

Hutchinson has 10 goals in 44 , Dibling 2/35 both English so premium tax all 3 are here when afcon is on. All have better attitude than BEK and what people are forgetting is no one wanted to pay as much as they did for them.

If the rest of the premier league thought him worth a punt at 35 or 40 don’t you think they would have? Or do you think their DOFs are thinking ‘ he’s worth 40 m but because it’s Rudkin and Leicester we won’t bid’

The thought process on here astounds me.

 

[reynard]

The truth is none of us know exactly what the deal entails.

is there a loan fee?

Are they paying all his wages?

 

Then there is the unknown about whether our manager wanted him out of the club at all costs. What if the only option would have been to have an unsettled player on the books, not really wanting to play for us but us having to cover all his wages, insurance etc etc?

 

He's clearly ambitious and Stuggart will be just a stepping stone for him and maybe next season a bigger club will come in and offer more money?

 

I admit it doesn't look a great deal on the surface but without the detail it is hard to be exact.

[TJB-fox]

26 minutes ago, reynard said:

The truth is none of us know exactly what the deal entails.

is there a loan fee?

Are they paying all his wages?

 

Then there is the unknown about whether our manager wanted him out of the club at all costs. What if the only option would have been to have an unsettled player on the books, not really wanting to play for us but us having to cover all his wages, insurance etc etc?

 

He's clearly ambitious and Stuggart will be just a stepping stone for him and maybe next season a bigger club will come in and offer more money?

 

I admit it doesn't look a great deal on the surface but without the detail it is hard to be exact.

I wouldn’t mind a loan deal without the obligation to buy - because he might go smash up Bundesliga and a bigger club come in for him for more money,

 

but a loan with obligation to buy seems a bit rubbish.

[reynard]

1 minute ago, TJB-fox said:

I wouldn’t mind a loan deal without the obligation to buy - because he might go smash up Bundesliga and a bigger club come in for him for more money,

 

but a loan with obligation to buy seems a bit rubbish.

Depends if both the club and player are legally obligated or just the club.

[Lesta Legend]

We're also getting thin on the ground for sellable bigger assets like Bilal, so next season if we don't get promoted that income in that period may be important.

[Jazzy_Jeff]

This is the key thing for me - we might not ever know the ins and outs of the deal.

 

In an ideal world they’ve agreed to pay £5m loan fee and cover his wages with an obligation to pay another £25m at end of the season.

 

Could be possible if Newcastle aren’t paying them anything for a year.

30 minutes ago, reynard said:

The truth is none of us know exactly what the deal entails.

is there a loan fee?

Are they paying all his wages?

 

Then there is the unknown about whether our manager wanted him out of the club at all costs. What if the only option would have been to have an unsettled player on the books, not really wanting to play for us but us having to cover all his wages, insurance etc etc?

 

He's clearly ambitious and Stuggart will be just a stepping stone for him and maybe next season a bigger club will come in and offer more money?

 

I admit it doesn't look a great deal on the surface but without the detail it is hard to be exact.

[Foxes96]

I wonder if the relegation release clause was always €30m not £30m…

 

Therefore, if the deal is €5m loan fee and €25 obligation to buy it is essentially the same as the release clause just structured slightly differently and reduces the sell on fee to Genk. 
 

Still not saying it’s a great deal at €30m/ £26m total package, but still represents a profit after 1 year of hardly pulling up trees and being relegated. 

[dmayne7]

42 minutes ago, Number 6 said:

Yeh I think this is an issue with the three year structure - you actually want to smooth out annual performance so that you don't have feast and famine years. It was our big issue with the two years of massive losses. In theory you want to roughly hit the loss limit every year.

 

It will be interesting for Brighton soon on this regard because they had a year with like £120m profit. They can't go have a year of £150m losses next though because there is a 3 year block in the future which includes the big loss, but not the big profit.

Yet another reason why it doesn't work. Should be a minimum of a 5 year cycle otherwise it's basically take a punt on trying to get CL football/promotion etc. and if you don't, a fire sale for 2 years although you can't really do that because of book value (yet another stupid criteria as actually stops clubs from selling unwanted assets).

[reynard]

Just now, dmayne7 said:

Yet another reason why it doesn't work. Should be a minimum of a 5 year cycle otherwise it's basically take a punt on trying to get CL football/promotion etc. and if you don't, a fire sale for 2 years although you can't really do that because of book value (yet another stupid criteria as actually stops clubs from selling unwanted assets).

I do wonder if players and their agents might start to complain too. If you are or you have a player at a club who wants to leave but the club they play for won't sell for under a certain amount where is the line regarding restraint of trade?  Clubs seem far more hampered now in selling players than in the past.

[Nickaj]

1 hour 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.

 

Of course we don't know all the circumstances or intricacies of the deal but, based on the club's past performance and their refusal to provide any form of comment, we are perfectly entitled to think the worst.

On the face of it, this is a terrible deal - what else can we think given the previous alternative offers commented upon in the press only - on the day before the closure of the window - to hear he is leaving on a lower value loan deal.

It may be that the club have exciting potential signings lined up to complete during the course of today which then might go some way towards improving my current opinion of the most senior management at the club, but on the basis of this transfer, I doubt it.

[RedSoxUK]

£26m for a willy puller after one year is excellent business.

 

VOLUMES that no PL team want him, those murmurs of Palace, Newcastle, Spurs, Leeds/Sunderland, they sniffed him out easily.

 

Classic semi-creative pre-assistor that can't play on the wing, can't score as a 10, can't play all round as an 8, a £20m luxury. 7 goals in 133 professional appearances is quite frankly dog shit - Kingy had 22+ by BEKs age. 

 

I'm sure he'll get better, but he was a risk for us and I think 7th / 8th choice after we lost out on targets, knew his antics reflected poorly on him as he left Genk. Glad he's gone. Won't remember him.

[urban.spaceman]

1 hour ago, Ric Flair said:

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.

Has it taken into account the rule changes for the last few seasons?

[Chelmofox]

1 hour 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

BEK is easy on the eye, and you have likely seen more because you watch him more.  Whether he is better than the others is purely subjective at this stage. When buying talent at a young age, a number of factors clearly come in to play (english tax being one of those). However, I don't know if the other 3 you listed downed tools, was hugely disruptive behind the scenes and gave the club a move ultimatum. BEK has played a huge part himself in this transfer and I presume Marti has made it clear that he felt the player had to go if he was able to do something with this squad.

 

We also can't compare with Isak and Wissa, who both have had outstanding PL seasons. BEK 'looking good' doesnt cut it in this example. 

 

Also have seen comparisons with Gnoto and Summerville. Again, we don't know the situations there but maybe Farke felt those players hadn't burned bridges yet and if the right offers didn't come in could be brought back in. 

 

There seems to be a story to be told about training in the lead up to Preston, the 1st half itself and what happened at half time. The team looked utterly deflated that day, and have looked significantly better since BEK was taken out of the squad. 

 

Market value is only based on what someone is willing to pay. The fact the PL clubs have looked elsewhere is damning for BEK. He might not care because he got his move, but unless he absolutely nails this season (thats in output, rather than style) then he might find the next moves much, much more difficult.

 

 

[Bluearmyfox28]

5 hours ago, Ric Flair said:

I just don't get this deal at all. Stuttgart are cash rich this summer. Don't see how a loan even with obligation benefits us and we're always desperate for cash flow.

I would imagine we’ve decided we are not in need for the money this year to do our recruitment, therefore decided to bank the money next year instead.

 

By having a £5m loan fee we’ve also reduced the amount Genk will receive via sell on clause. £25m means they’re entitled to 15% of £4m in comparison to them being entitled to 15% of £10m+.
 

As ugly as it seems, long term it probably benefits us.

[Bluearmyfox28]

4 hours ago, Ric Flair said:

No, what i'm saying is I don't follow the logic this benefits us for next year by doing so.

It’s forward thinking which we need to do more often. PSR is a 3 year cycle, so it’s staying ahead of it from that perspective.

 

We are allowed a max loss of £61m in that 3 year cycle. We have one season in the premier league (Max loss £35m) & two season in the championship (Max loss £13m per season). This will be the same for next season too if we don’t go up.

 

We also have our parachute payments reduced 10% next season if we are still in the championship, so fronting money for next year also helps with that.

Edited 1 September 2025 by Bluearmyfox28

[sylofox]

3 hours ago, Ric Flair said:

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.

So to all intense and purpose you have to spend any profits the year they are made else you lose it. That's fvcking stupid.

[Ric Flair]

8 minutes ago, Bluearmyfox28 said:

It’s forward thinking which we need to do more often. PSR is a 3 year cycle, so it’s staying ahead of it from that perspective.

This is the grey area, booking £10m profit in 25/26 or 26/27 should in theory be the same for the 3 year rolling cycle that both years are part of as it's the overall maximum allowable losses. However, from what chatgpt confirmed, you don't carry forward profit, only losses.

[Ric Flair]

Just now, sylofox said:

So to all intense and purpose you have to spend any profits the year they are made else you lose it. That's fvcking stupid.

Yeah it surely is bollocks, otherwise how do you make up for past massive losses?

[ealingfox]

Lowballed on the fee again, there's a surprise.

[coolhandfox]

Just now, Ric Flair said:

This is the grey area, booking £10m profit in 25/26 or 26/27 should in theory be the same for the 3 year rolling cycle that both years are part of as it's the overall maximum allowable losses. However, from what chatgpt confirmed, you don't carry forward profit, only losses.

Nothing to do with the money, I think this was the only genuine offer on the table. 

[coolhandfox]

Just now, ealingfox said:

Lowballed on the fee again, there's a surprise.

So what do we do keep a player who going to be rotten around the place. 

[Bluearmyfox28]

1 minute ago, Ric Flair said:

This is the grey area, booking £10m profit in 25/26 or 26/27 should in theory be the same for the 3 year rolling cycle that both years are part of as it's the overall maximum allowable losses. However, from what chatgpt confirmed, you don't carry forward profit, only losses.

I didn’t know that you didn’t carry forward profit to be honest but regardless you wouldn’t want all your income to be sat in one year.
 

Eventually that individual year will fall off the 3 year cycle, by spreading it across to next year you are putting yourself in a better position for future 3 year cycles, if that makes sense?

 

Ultimately I hate to say it but I think it’s somewhat a shrewd business move as ultimately they are going to be paying Genk around £600k instead of £1.5m. I think that’s the key part to the deal.

[Bluearmyfox28]

7 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

Yeah it surely is bollocks, otherwise how do you make up for past massive losses?

In fact this can’t be true because didn’t Brighton spend a crazy amount the following season they sold Caicedo etc because of the pure profit they made the year before?