I must admit to not knowing how the SCR rules that have replaced PSR work

a bit of research suggests that EFC are currently at approximately 102% which is a fair bit above the 85% limit but inside the multi-year allowance so easily recoverable. But if we don't sell Ndiaye and bring in the others we want/need, then we are moving dangerously towards the 115% red zone which needless to say is not desirable. It's not this straightforward because increased revenue gives more freedom. However, with this in mind, is it necessarily unreasonable of the club to sell? Some detail on the Ndiaye/Richarlison situation from ChatGPT (usual caveats). Apologies if you knew about this already, but it's interesting to me. * If Ndiaye won't extend his contract, Everton have to consider the asset-management question regardless of SCR. But SCR makes selling him particularly attractive. Imagine, illustratively, something resembling: Ndiaye → Tottenham: £60m Richarlison → Everton: £35m That isn't simply Everton exchanging a better/younger player for an older one and pocketing £25m. The SCR accounting effect could be dramatically more favourable than that. Ndiaye joined Everton for a reported fee around £15m in 2024. After two years of amortisation, his remaining book value should be substantially below the £60m being discussed. A £60m sale could therefore create something like £50m+ of accounting profit. Meanwhile, Everton wouldn't necessarily incur £35m of SCR cost immediately for Richarlison. His transfer fee would normally be amortised across his contract. If, purely illustratively, Everton bought him for £35m on four years: £35m ÷ 4 = £8.75m annual amortisation Add perhaps £7–8m wages and associated costs and Richarlison might add something around £16–18m of annual squad cost. So a transaction of that sort could simultaneously: generate perhaps £50m+ player-sale profit + replace Ndiaye with another first-team attacker + add only ~£15–20m of annual SCR cost. That's an extremely powerful piece of financial engineering under SCR.