Nope, when you sell a player you take the transfer fee less the carrying value of the player and that is recognised in that accounting period as a profit/loss on disposal.
So let's say Havertz was originally bought for 60m on a 5 year contract (I can't be arsed to look up exact figures) and was 3 years in to the contract, his carrying value would be 60m less 3 years of 12m amortisation costs= 24mill. When they sold him to Woolwich for 60mill ish then they recognise that profit on disposal of 36mill there and then.
Mount has a zero carrying value as he was an academy profit. So the full transfer fee from United was an instant profit.
They're using those in-period profits to offset the amortisation of their mad spending spree, the latter which they can spread over the long contract lengths.
They will get caught out if they can't get profits on disposal by selling their assets in future, like with Mount and Havertz. They are reliant on having not bought duds really!
It is a huge risk, that much is obvious.
Look, I appreciate you took the time to write this all down, but I am beyond fucking sick of the amateur accountants repeating this time after time...
It's a fucking bookkeeping quirk that allows them to skirt by the supposed FFP rules.
It's a technicality.
They are committed to ~£1b of transfer spend, in the same time they have received ~£200m in sales. BOTH lots of sums are being paid/received over a period of years.
That is the bottom line!
Just because there is a stupid loophole in the FFP rules or whatever it is that allows this, does not mean anyone beyond the most brainwashed Chav muppet should be claiming them as in fucking profit. That is like me getting a loan over the next 8 years that I am due to pay back £200 a month on, and with no other source of income claiming myself to be financially sound because I had a car boot sale
this month and raked in £250... In fact, it's not even like that, because in this scenario my £250 incoming from the boot sale should be spread over 5 years too!
Not once have I ever seen anyone put forward a rational explanation for why transfers in should be considered over the duration of the contract yet transfers out, where you are receiving the money in instalments also, should be counted immediately.
I'd very much like something on that, not yet another "Well you see the transfer fee is ackshually amortised blah blah blah..." I'm pretty sure we're all well versed in that spiel by now.