UEFA didn’t ‘block’ Aston Villa’s move for William Osula on deadline day – here’s what really happened

Add as preferred source on Google

Aston Villa snapped up Harvey Elliott and Jadon Sancho on deadline day, but missed out on signing Newcastle United’s William Osula.

Unai Emery has worked wonders at Aston Villa, but this season has started inauspiciously.

Villa have claimed just one point from three Premier League games and were beaten 3-0 by Crystal Palace before the international break.

Emery responded with a couple of deals on deadline day, as Harvey Elliott said goodbye to Liverpool as he headed to Villa Park.

Elliott joins Villa on loan with an obligation to buy, while Jadon Sancho came in from Manchester United on a season-long loan.

• READ MORE: What Morgan Rogers has told England teammates about Aston Villa signing Harvey Elliott and Jadon Sancho

Why Aston Villa didn’t sign Newcastle United’s William Osula

Emery now has two new attackers at his disposal, but he missed out on Newcastle United’s William Osula.

The Daily Mail reported that Villa agreed a deal to sign Osula from Newcastle, but UEFA’s spending rules ‘complicated’ the deal.

TBR Football’s football finance expert Adam Williams has now explained just why UEFA’s rules meant Osula stayed put at St James’ Park.

Villa sold Jacob Ramsey to Newcastle over the summer, so Osula’s move to Villa Park would effectively have been treated as an exchange.

UEFA did not block the deal by any stretch, but may have threatened to mark down the profit from Ramsey’s move to Newcastle.

Williams noted that Villa could have still signed Osula, but they just are not in a position to see pure profit on a homegrown player like Ramsey be scaled down.

Williams added that the case with Osula was ‘unusual’, but even a loan with an obligation to buy could have sparked UEFA into action.

“Villa have used the quasi-swap route before in instances where they patently were trying to artificially inflate their balance sheet in the short term to beat PSR,” said Williams.

“In my view, they should be allowed to do that, because it’s not like it’s a free hit. Take the Ian Maatsen and Omari Kellyman ‘swap’ in 2024, for example. Villa paid £37.5m for Maatsen, which equated to £7.5m amortisation in the first year. Kellyman went the other way for £19m, and Villa booked that profit immediately, so they were up by £11.5m for the financial year.

“But Villa still have to amortise the rest of Maatsen’s fee over the next four years, at £7.5m per year. So it’s basically a short-term gamble. If clubs want to create more short-term PSR headroom but make things harder for themselves over the next few years in exchange, that should be up to them.

“In this instance with the would-be Osula deal, the issue as far as I understand it isn’t the ‘swap’ itself but rather the fact that UEFA would have revised the profits of the deal down if they adjudged it to be over and above fair market value – and presumably that process would be triggered by the fact that the two clubs had recently done the deal for Ramsey.

“However, given the fact that it was going to be a loan deal, that complicates matters somewhat. If it was a loan with an obligation to buy, they would have started amortising the future fee straight away anyway, so I can see why it might have been considered a swap under the accounting rules.

“What is more common in these circumstances where clubs want to create more short-term PSR headroom, however, is that it’s a loan with an option that is very likely – but not certain – to be triggered. And under that circumstance, you can start the amortisation process in the next financial year. There are different accounting standards, but that tends to be the way it is done.

“So UEFA wouldn’t have ‘blocked’ this deal per se, but they would perhaps have threatened to revise the booked profit down on the Ramsey deal as a result, which Villa can’t afford to risk in their situation. It’s an unusual case, either way,” he added.

• READ MORE: Alan Shearer shares what he honestly thinks about William Osula after Anthony Gordon’s suspension

William Osula facing uncertain Newcastle United future

Osula missed out on a move to Aston Villa and saw two more potential moves fade away as well.

Eintracht Frankfurt wanted to sign Osula on deadline day after losing Hugo Ekitike to Liverpool over the summer.

That deal collapsed as well, leaving Osula stuck behind Nick Woltemade and Yoane Wissa at Newcastle.

Osula was even offered to Ajax last week, with the Dutch market remaining open longer than the English window.

That deal didn’t materialise either, so Osula must now fight for his place at Newcastle, at least until the January window.

An exit in January would not be a surprise, but whether Villa return for the Dane remains to be seen.