GdS: PSV prepare approach as Milan open to loan formula for €35.5m man

By Oliver Fisher -

Yet more reports continue to emerge suggesting that AC Milan are braced for an offer from PSV Eindhoven for Charles De Ketelaere.

La Gazzetta dello Sport (seen below) writes that De Ketelaere will return to Milanello and his second season as a Milan player will officially begin. How long he will be there though remains to be seen.

Milan signed him for €35.5m from Club Brugge but he had a very disappointing debut campaign with zero goals and just one assist. For this reason, the management have even opened up to a loan with option to buy if the conditions are right.

PSV Eindhoven’s interest in De Ketelaere is concrete but they can only do an initial loan, with Milan ready to listen but their ideas but there can only be an agreement under certain circumstances.

The price fixed at the Rossoneri is €28-30m so as to avoid a loss on the accounts, while an option to buy next year would mean an extra year of amortisation and thus the price would be closer to €20m.

PSV are looking for a replacement for Xavi Simons after he returned to Paris Saint-Germain having signed Noa Lang from Club Brugge who was linked with Milan last year.

There are no negotiations yet but they could be opened soon, and a lot depends on De Ketelaere’s will, who at the moment seems convinced to stay and prove himself.

Tags AC Milan Charles De Ketelaere


  1. In my opinion these articles put way to much emphasis on amortisation.
    The value of a player is not only dictated by the years left on his contract, as we can clearly see with our transfer targets, who still cost a lot even in their last year.
    Milan should evaluate the player based on multiple other factors, like his potential, his age. They probably are doing that though, it’s just the journalists insisting with ‘avoiding a capital loss’.

    1. “an option to buy next year would mean an extra year of amortisation and thus the price would be closer to €20m.”
      Or it could mean an extra year of player develpoment and maturing and the price would be closer to 50m.

      1. But what you wrote about the price being 50 is really ridiculous. The article is talking about the price of getting rid of an unwanted player without avoiding loss and you are talking about selling a player that is doing good. Maybe he becomes the best player in the world and costs 300M, that is not the point of the article.

        1. The article is saying to settle on an option to sell next year based solely on amortisation. I don’t agree with that logic and I don’t think any team does that.
          Real Madrid bought Brahim Diaz for 17 mil and they didn’t need him. They loaned him at Milan where he sucked for one year. Then, they asked for a buy option of 22 mil (as reported). That doesn’t fit any amortisation schedule.

          1. No, it doesn’t say that. It says the fee would be closer to that amount. Literally.

            For Diaz, you forgot to mention the buyback clause. Which would essentially mean that the buy option clause was there because Milan asked for it and Real did not want it. So they put a bigger price if…

            Also, you are talking about a club that can pay Hazard over 100M, pay him extremely high wages and bench him, and comparing it to Milan, a club that has a “20M players” transfer strategy.

      2. The price it would require ot recover the initial investment is 20 million if they loan this year and purchase him. No one said it was his market value.

    2. What? 😂😂😂 They have full teams to manage finances and yes, this is one of the most important factors. It affects your transfer funds and how much you can spend. It isn’t that hard to understand why the club that wants to get rid of a player wouldn’t mind selling him for an amount that nets them 0 or a small profit, and doesn’t want to have a minus on the sheet.

      1. The sheet is not about one single player. There isn’t a CDK sheet that needs to be positive. The accounts have to be positive overall. We can lose 1 mil on CDK and gain 40 on Tonali for example and be just fine.
        But that wasn’t my point. I think that they shouldn’t settle with just getting the amount needed ‘to avoid a capital loss’.
        Chelsea didn’t do that for RLC and Pulisic, no other club is doing it, and they’re all desperate to get rid of players, it’s not just us.

    3. Yeah I agree.
      The notoion that we can keep player for a year on our books and then sell him for 20M is ridiulous. We are still taking the loss of this year’s ammortisation. It’s just shifting the loss from one column to the other.
      Also the +/- valenza on a single player is not that important, as those reports assume it to be. What is important is the balance of the whole mercato.

  2. “The price fixed at the Rossoneri is €28-30m so as to avoid a loss on the accounts, while an option to buy next year would mean an extra year of amortisation and thus the price would be closer to €20m.”

    That means they have to pay €7m loan fee.

  3. Both your opinion and the journalist are true.
    Selling and buying a player are the same as gambling on the stock market. A player that drops his value because of his performance could possibly doubled his own value after playing better on the next season, so the parent club would take a gamble when sell him on loan with options.
    On the other side, i think the value that hold by FIFA regarding FFP would consider the other option such as the amortisation.
    There are other factor too like the player popularity and age.
    I think the seeling and buying clubs have some tough arguments about this in every transaction made

Comments are closed

Serie A Standings

Live football scores . Current table, fixtures & results.