da brdice： The trio's recent dealings have raised eyebrows as June 30 approaches, but is there really a problem?

da aviator aposta： After a painfully slow January window, the summer is shaping up to be busy on the transfer front. We've already had Kylian Mbappe's blockbuster Real Madrid move confirmed and even with two international tournaments on, several Premier League clubs have already entered the fray.

It's hardly household names being exchanged, though. On a strangely busy few days last week, Aston Villa, Everton and Chelsea were involved in a string of inter-club dealings that have caused quite a stir.

It started with Tim Iroegbunam, a 20-year-old midfielder with just a handful of senior Villa appearances under his belt, being snapped up by the Toffees for a reported fee of around £9 million ($11m). The following day, young Everton striker Lewis Dobbin went in the opposite direction for almost exactly the same price.

Villa then agreed to sell teenager Omari Kellyman to Chelsea for £19m ($24m) – a pretty remarkable amount for a player with just 148 minutes of first-team football under his belt. Soon after, it was reported that Ian Maatsen would be doing the reverse, albeit for around £37.5m ($47m) instead.

We might have seen another inter-club deal, too. Last week Everton were touted to sign Yankuba Minteh from Newcastle – with the Magpies subsequently being linked with Toffees striker Dominic Calvert-Lewin. However, talks eventually broke down.

Each of these deals were technically separate transactions, but the timing of the transfers has raised eyebrows. Some rival supporters have even accused the clubs involved of trying to game the Premier League Profit and Sustainability Rules (PSR), with the phrase 'player laundering' gathering traction on social media.

Are these accusations accurate or wide of the mark? GOAL explains the complicated situation below…

GettyWhat is PSR?

To begin, it's worth setting the scene slightly. PSR were introduced by Premier League clubs back in 2013, two years after UEFA made waves by finally introducing Financial Fair Play to its own competitions. The motion only narrowly passed, with six clubs voting against the proposals and Reading abstaining, but the system remains in place today.

On the most basic level, the rules state that clubs are not permitted to make losses greater than £105 million ($133m) over three years. It's not quite as simple as that, though. Of this £35m ($44m) per year loss, just £5m ($6m) can be the club's own money. The additional £30m ($38m) allowance can be boosted by secure funding, which is defined by as: "either an equity contribution or an irrevocable commitment to make a payment for shares." Loans from owners do not count as 'secure funding'.

There are also adjustments made for clubs who have spent time outside the Premier League during the three-year PSR accounting period. In these cases, the percentage of the losses that can be made up via 'secure funding' are less.

AdvertisementGettyWhy isn't PSR popular with some clubs?

PSR has always been a contentious issue, as evidenced by the sizable cartel of clubs who voted against its implementation a decade ago. Financial control has become an even more fiercely debated topic in recent years, though.

There are two sides to the coin. Firstly, there is the argument that the financial controls discourage ambition. Most Newcastle fans would likely subscribe to this idea. Following their Saudi-backed takeover in 2021, the club were swiftly linked with all manner of expensive signings. And while there has been investment in the playing squad, with the Magpies returning to the Champions League last season, their rate of progress has been far slower than when Chelsea and Manchester City were purchased by well-monied owners, with both of those takeovers happened before the introduction of PSR controls.

By contrast, Newcastle are likely to have to sell at least one key player this summer in order to balance the books, with Alexander Isak and Bruno Guimaraes both linked with moves away. Aston Villa, who have also spent heavily to orchestrate a return to European football's top table, are likely to do the same. Douglas Luiz is already on his way to Juventus in a complex player-plus-cash deal, and they may be forced to sell another key asset, too.

GettyPoints deductions

The other side to PSR criticism stems from the punishments that have been handed out to Premier League clubs this past season for breaking the rules. In November last year, Everton were initially docked 10 points for PSR breaches for the period ending in 2022, though on appeal this was reduced to six.

A few months later, the Toffees received another two-point penalty, while Nottingham Forest have also fallen foul of the rules. The Trees had four points taken off them, with their own attempts at appeal proving unsuccessful.

Leicester are in similarly hot water. In March, the Championship winners were charged by the Premier League for PSR breaches. While they avoided any points deduction last season which might have derailed their promotion charge, the issue is still being considered, with experts suggesting that some sort of punishment is inevitable.

The timing of some of these decisions have been criticised, with the various points deductions creating unnecessary uncertainty in the relegation battle, while the severity of Everton's punishment in particular raised eyebrows. Supporters organised a string of protests last season, while Jamie Carragher was critical of the initial points deduction.

"The 10-point deduction for Everton is excessive and not right, considering they have been working with the Premier League about this for the last couple of years," he wrote on social media the time. "Would it have been better to be evasive and try and drag it out like other clubs? No doubt relegated clubs will have put big pressure on the Premier League to deal with Everton, but when you consider six clubs tried to leave the Premier League [and join the Super League] and there was no sanction at all, it doesn’t feel right."

It doesn't take a genius to work out that the "other clubs" Carragher was referring to were Manchester City and Chelsea. The former are currently facing 115 similar financial charges, while the Blues were forced to sell two hotels to a sister company to ease their financial concerns following a string of transfer splurges. These two issues hanging over the entire PSR debate have only made it more difficult for the Premier League's smaller clubs to stomach the regulations.

Getty ImagesWhy are homegrown sales so lucrative?

For as long as PSR has been in place, clubs have sought ways to bend the regulations. Chelsea raised public consciousness of this following their Clearlake Capital takeover, signing players to startlingly long contracts to ensure they had the smallest impact on their on-the-books spending.

This process is known as amortisation, whereby a player's transfer fee is gradually written off over the course of his contract. For instance, although Mykhailo Mudryk cost the club an eye-watering £89m ($112m), this figure will be evenly spread out over the course of his eight-and-a-half year deal for accounting purposes.

Another way that clubs have been able to fast track their way to PSR compliance is by selling players produced by their academies. These exits count as pure profit in the accounts as clubs have not paid a transfer fee to acquire their services. Their values are not amortised either.

So, if Chelsea were to sell Conor Gallagher for £50m ($63m) this summer, every penny of that fee could be used to help the club become PSR compliant. The Blues have sold a host of Cobham graduates in recent years, but they are far from the only club to flip their youngsters for huge profits.