yes, that's what i considered too. ffp allows a combined loss of 30m for a 3-year rolling period. next summer, we'll have to consider the following 3 years:
- 2017/18: -19,2m
- 2018/19: -40m according to the previsions
- 2019/20: we don't know yet obviously
these two first years' combined balance is ~60m in the red, so in order to make our 3-year balance compliant with the ffp regulations, a +30m financial year is required.
any summer's so called "transfer balance" is completely irrelevant when it comes to ffp. uefa wouldn't observe it separately at all.
also, you shouldn't bother with any summer transfer balance just because it simply doesn't make sense from an accounting point of view. sales affect the books immediately, while costs/purchases are spread over the contract period.
for example, when we sold spinazzola, the sale value (29,5m) immediately raised the club's revenue, while his (useless) replacement's cost (22m) will be spread over the contract period, which is 4 years in pellegrini's case. so when it comes to the books, that 29,5m (minus the remaining book value, which was close to zero in spina's case) raised the revenue for the financial year 2018/19, while the quarter of pellegrini's price, 5,5m will be the cost assigned to pellegrini in last year's book, and also in the books for the next 3 years, too - unless he's sold permanently, of course. so that swap deal meant an immediate +24m effect on the books, and a -5,5m effect for the next 3 years. it's not like 29,5m-22m=7,5m for last season. that's why stuff like "summer's transfer balance" or "net spent" are meaningless.