English football has long known June 30 is a date with the potential to carry huge significance. The day when tensions grew and anxieties multiplied. At the back of minds, that nagging fear of failure, with the consequences clear if things do not go to plan.
But enough about Gareth Southgate and his squad over in Germany.
Advertisement
England might have problems ahead of facing Slovakia in the last 16 of Euro 2024 on Sunday, June 30, but there are Premier League executives who can also be forgiven for losing sleep ahead of this weekend.
Because June 30 has increasingly become known as the new, albeit unofficial, transfer deadline.
As the date that marks the end of the financial year for the majority of Premier League clubs, it is the final cut-off point for compliance with profit and sustainability rules (PSR). Business done before we enter July on Monday could determine which side of the threshold a club end up on and, most importantly, if a potentially disastrous points deduction will be in the post next season.
It is why several clubs, including Aston Villa, Chelsea and Everton, got busy among themselves this month and why others, such as Newcastle United and Nottingham Forest, are eager to join in the trading before it is too late. The clock is ticking, and how the coming days play out might end up deciding how many asterisks — if any — appear on the 2024-25 Premier League table.
The Athletic analyses the key issues ahead of what promises to be a big weekend, on and off the pitch.
How did we end up here? What is the sudden significance of June 30?
At the risk of you clicking off onto another article, much of this story is not new.
The Premier League introduced financial fair play (FFP) in 2013, broadly mirroring rules from UEFA, European football’s governing body, to try to rein in spiralling costs. The same notion’s current guise of PSR, one that will remain in place next season before reform arrives in 2025-26, allows for clubs to make losses of up to £105million ($132.9m at the current exchange rate) over a rolling three-year period.
All 20 top-flight clubs are obliged to submit their annual accounts as part of their PSR assessment. It is the financial year end of June 30, adopted by the majority of them, that has this year made an otherwise largely nondescript summer Sunday so meaningful.
Compliance with the financial rules is not the cakewalk it used to be. A cluster of aspirational clubs have been willing to chance their arm in an era of inflated wages and transfer fees, all to sharpen their competitive edge.
Everton (twice) and Forest have breached PSR in the past two seasons, leading the Premier League to deduct a combined 12 points across the three cases. Others are known to have sailed close to the wind in 2023-24.
Advertisement
The transfer business of the past fortnight, with academy players bought and sold between clubs, would indicate Villa, Everton and Chelsea all had motivations to bring in funds ahead of June 30. Forest and Newcastle United are also open to sales. Promoted Leicester City, already facing one PSR charge from the Premier League relating to the 2022-23 season, are close to limits, too.
These final days of June are the opportunity to balance out some of your losses through player trading. The sale of homegrown academy players is especially attractive as it allows clubs to book a sizeable profit before the accounting period ends.
This is not to say June 30 matters to every club. As well as the prudent, carefully-run teams nowhere near the spending limits, some choose to run to a financial year ending on May 31. Arsenal, Liverpool Wolverhampton Wanderers do this, for example. They have all already entered their 2024-25 season in accounting terms and any wish to enhance their 2023-24 books expired four weeks ago.
All the Premier League asks of its clubs is that annual accounting periods end somewhere between May 31 and July 31 and that flexibility has allowed some to add an extra month to theirs in recent times. Leicester extended theirs from May 31 to June 30 for the 2022-23 season, the one where they were relegated, affording them the chance to book the sale of England midfielder James Maddison to Tottenham Hotspur for £40million on June 28.
“The reason June 30 is put forward is that for the vast majority of clubs, it is their financial year-end and the PSR regulations that the Premier League assesses them on are in sync with a club’s accounting period,” says Chris Weatherspoon, accountant and policy advisor to Fair Game, a group campaigning to improve football governance.
“You could ask if it’s a Premier League or accounting deadline and I suppose it’s both. It’s an accounting deadline, but because the rules are in line with your accounting period, June 30 has also become a Premier League deadline.
“It’s worth saying that June 30 isn’t relevant to a few clubs. Arsenal, for example, are May 31. So for them, June 30 doesn’t make a difference.
“Up until February of this year, Aston Villa’s financial year-end was May 31, but they moved that to June 30. It’s their right to do that, but this year they will run a 13-month accounting period up until June 30. They might say they’re bringing it in line with most other clubs or the end of the season, but this gives them that extra month to do the deals we’re seeing now to ensure they’re compliant.”
Is there any flexibility on the June 30 deadline?
Some, but very little. Any set of company accounts, football club or otherwise, must be considered true and fair, requiring an auditor to vouch for their authenticity. That means a player sold on July 21, for example, could not be casually dropped into the previous year’s accounts to suit a club’s PSR needs.
Advertisement
There could be some leeway, though. Provided a transfer has been signed off between two clubs, which constitutes a legally binding contract, ahead of midnight on June 30, a club would likely be able to include it in the previous year’s accounts even if it is concluded a day or two later.
It is the auditors, though, who judge that — not the Premier League. There’s a point at which a player has passed from one club to another because a transfer becomes irreversible. This does not mean the point at which a player’s registration is transferred.
Everton’s sale of Richarlison to Tottenham for £60million in summer 2022 illustrates that element of flexibility. The Brazilian’s move was not formally announced until July 1, but advanced talks on the previous day ensured Everton could record his sale in their 2021-22 accounts. They also included Ellis Simms’ £6million move to Coventry City of the Championship last year in their 2022-23 accounts, despite that transfer being concluded on July 7.
“What you can argue is that it might fall under the definition of an adjusting post-balance sheet event,” says Kieran Maguire, football finance expert and a lecturer at the University of Liverpool.
“Under those circumstances, you could say you’ve agreed a sale of player X from one club to another — ‘We’ve broadly agreed the fee, all of the main issues have been dealt with, but there are still a couple of issues outstanding with regards to personal terms’.
“The clubs had broadly agreed a fee but were still waiting for the player to sort it out. Therefore you can back-date it to June 30. An adjusting post-balance sheet event is where you’ve got evidence of something that had broadly been agreed before the balance sheet date. You would need to have evidence of that, but it shouldn’t be that difficult.”
That effectively makes this a soft deadline, rather than the hard one clubs are accustomed to when the transfer windows close at the end of summer and again in January or early February. There is not the same need to formally register players with the Premier League, nor the risk of missing out if the correct paperwork is not submitted. Transfer agreements suffice, affording breathing space for the days that follow to complete the details.
Advertisement
That ensures this year’s June 30 deadline, falling on a Sunday, is not more of a hindrance than if it was a weekday. A club technically has five working days to submit paperwork to the Premier League after a transfer agreement has been signed.
There is an element of flexibility in the right circumstances, but one point worth making is the futility of citing a near-miss.
Forest tried as much when facing an independent commission. They attempted to argue the sale of Brennan Johnson to Tottenham on September 1 last year should act as mitigation after they had tried but failed to sell the Wales winger before the June 30 cut-off point, even though he had then played in the opening four games of their season.
The Premier League might look more favourably on a helpful sale happening soon after the accounting period, something that might bring greater leniency in sanctions, but it would not be enough to cancel out a breach if it comes too late to be included in a club’s accounts.
“You would have a much stronger argument for a near-miss if it was to come a few days after June 30, but all the clubs have known the date for compliance,” adds Weatherspoon. “The accounting date has not come as a surprise.
“Until the last year or two, this hasn’t been an issue. It’s only become an issue because teams have been close to the limit and, in some cases, breaching. The amounts that clubs are spending now have ballooned but the limits themselves haven’t moved. Clubs are running into trouble and trying to find a way out of it.”
And how have they been doing that?
It is probably best termed as creative recruitment.
Clubs with a headache, such as Everton, Villa and Chelsea, have formed unofficial transfer alliances in the past month, selling from one to the other.
Everton sold — and the emphasis is on sold — Lewis Dobbin to Villa for £9million, a day after Tim Iroegbunam went in the opposite direction for the same sum. The clubs could have swapped the two youngsters, but two sales helped push them towards compliance. Profit is booked from sales but the outlay is amortised — spread over the length of the player’s contract up to a maximum of five years.
Villa have struck mutually beneficial deals with Chelsea, too. Ian Maatsen has become their new left-back for around £37.5million, while relatively untested rookie Omari Kellyman will go from Villa Park to Stamford Bridge for £19m.
There was a point where Newcastle and Everton looked set to extend the pattern, but talks over deals for Dominic Calvert-Lewin and Yankuba Minteh stalled.
Eyebrows have been raised by other Premier League clubs but, so long as deals are thought to represent fair market value, no rules have been broken.
So once June 30 passes, when will we find out which clubs, if any, are in breach?
The clubs in question will have a very good idea at the end of this weekend — but it is unlikely to be before January that the Premier League formally serves any charges.
The annual accounts for 2021-22 and 2022-23 will already be with the Premier League and any clubs forecast to make a pre-tax loss have until December 31 to submit their 2023-24 books for inspection. Forest did that last season and immediately accepted their culpability, asking the Premier League for discussions to begin over the extent of the breach and the sanctions that would follow.
That cut-off point for PSR inspection was brought forward from March 31 at the Premier League’s 2023 AGM after Everton’s breach in 2021-22 went without punishment until last season. The change now allows enough time for sanctions to come into effect during the season that immediately follows a breach.
Advertisement
Forest and Everton were both charged in January this year, giving time for the disciplinary process to play out in the second half of the season. Forest learned their fate (a four-point deduction) on March 18 and Everton discovered theirs (a two-point deduction, on top of a previous six-point penalty) on April 8.
Three breaches across two seasons have all ended with points being taken away and league positions damaged.
Little wonder, then, that June 30 is circled on so many calendars.
(Top photos: Getty Images)