Heroes & Villains, the Aston Villa fanzine
Heroes & Villains => Heroes Discussion => Topic started by: aj2k77 on May 27, 2018, 05:48:41 PM
-
Ok so how buggered are we?
From what I read you are allowed £39m of losses over 3 years as long as the owner injects capital. More losses allowed should you have had time in the Premier League. Of which by the end of next we wont have, so we have £39m of losses allowed.
Some of the losses can be excluded. Losses to do with sale of the club and downwriting assets, not including players. Last season we posted losses of £80m, of which £79m were exceptional items. How much of that we can exclude from FFP I have no idea.
This year we posted a loss of £14m.
So that's £94m of losses over two seasons. Somehow we are going to have to get down to £39m including next seasons results and that's with £18m less of parachute payments. By my non certified accountant reckoning we need to find £70m ish to avoid breaking the rules by the end of next season, unless a large sum of the exceptional items from last year can be written off against the amount...
Have I gone wrong somewhere?
-
If £79 million is exceptional losses, is that not excluded from the calculation?
Recon sponsoring our training ground, shirts, tea spoons and the shadows we cast will help, as will getting a few more votes to change the rules.
-
So we just need to find a buyer for Micah Richards at 69m and we’re all but home and dry.
-
If £79 million is exceptional losses, is that not excluded from the calculation?
Recon sponsoring our training ground, shirts, tea spoons and the shadows we cast will help, as will getting a few more votes to change the rules.
£79m were exceptional losses but I don't know how much of that can be excluded from FFP. Things such as player depreciation cannot. It looked a weird set of accounts at the time, I'm hoping that it was a bit of pre-planning by the owner at the time to give us potential wiggle room but I don't know.
-
It does seem odd to to have £80 million losses but only £1 million counts as an ordinary loss. Somebody will know I suppose.
Wyness has never sounded too concerned about it all to be honest. I strongly suspect Recon sponsorship is a means of jibbing the system a bit.
-
Excuse my ignorance on this but wasn’t the £80m loss year (£79 exceptional) the year we went down (for which Dr Tony was now responsible for due to club purchase)
£14m loss was last season
This season won’t be posted till next year!? If we made £14m losses last season then this one must be more flat/even due to the player sales!?
Which means we will be absolutely fine!?
-
Hasn't the Dr borrowed a load of money to finance the club? I can see him selling up.
-
As I remembwr the 'exceptional losses' were something weird like thebclub being worth less because its a Championship club rather than a Premiership club now.
This being the case- thats a notional loss rather than actual debt, so I'm not sure it counts.
* all.of this could.be wrong!
-
Hm. I think we should be a bit more concerned, or at least questioning, than we are. I'm still not convinced the owner has any of his own money to spend.
-
Hm. I think we should be a bit more concerned, or at least questioning, than we are. I'm still not convinced the owner has any of his own money to spend.
What’s this based on may I ask?
-
Hm. I think we should be a bit more concerned, or at least questioning, than we are. I'm still not convinced the owner has any of his own money to spend.
What’s this based on may I ask?
There's stuff out there about Tone's MSG business being in debt, and he borrowed the money to buy Villa against his company.
It's internet stuff, so likely to be nonsense, however his background is so opaque that I do have my doubts about him and always have.
-
If anyone who knows about the financial side of things could provide more positive info, please do. I'd like to feel a bit better about the future!
-
Hm. I think we should be a bit more concerned, or at least questioning, than we are. I'm still not convinced the owner has any of his own money to spend.
What’s this based on may I ask?
There's stuff out there about Tone's MSG business being in debt, and he borrowed the money to buy Villa against his company.
It's internet stuff, so likely to be nonsense, however his background is so opaque that I do have my doubts about him and always have.
Well, I reckon we'll find out pretty soon, because we are going to need to buy a lot of players.
Look at the players who are here on loan, take them out, take out the leeches and end of contract players and look at what's left.
Not a lot.
-
There were at the end of the normal season twelve clubs in the championship that had failed the FFP test. Not sure if we were one of them but small heath certainly were. The league authorities are so shocked at the number of clubs involved they literally don’t know what to do about it.
-
There were at the end of the normal season twelve clubs in the championship that had failed the FFP test. Not sure if we were one of them but small heath certainly were. The league authorities are so shocked at the number of clubs involved they literally don’t know what to do about it.
As far as I know, we were absolutely fine
-
There were at the end of the normal season twelve clubs in the championship that had failed the FFP test. Not sure if we were one of them but small heath certainly were. The league authorities are so shocked at the number of clubs involved they literally don’t know what to do about it.
Do you know which 12?
-
There were at the end of the normal season twelve clubs in the championship that had failed the FFP test. Not sure if we were one of them but small heath certainly were. The league authorities are so shocked at the number of clubs involved they literally don’t know what to do about it.
As far as I know, we were absolutely fine
I seem to recall that at one of the SCG meetings, Wyness said that FFP is not a problem this season, but would be next season if we did not get promoted.
-
At SCG he said it was a problem if we didn't go up this time, but only on a 'the loans will have to go back' level.
We won't have the money we have had, but we're not in actual trouble from what I know. We have been cutting already, we have contracts expiring, we have loans, we have some decent youths.
-
This is the best summary I found. Can't vouch for its veracity but I found it both convincing and obviously alarming. In short, says we need to generate c £40m next season. We can save a bit on the high earners leaving. But that looks like jack leaving to me. Can't imagine Kodjia's stock is high enough
https://heartoftheholte1874.wordpress.com/2018/02/20/villa-play-ffp-roulette-as-the-consequences-of-failing-this-season-becomes-clear/#more-37
Any accountant types able to comment on this piece?
-
He's hardly going to tell a bunch of fans that we're fucked is he. Hopefully we aren't, but from meetings I was at in the past, what they say and what happens aren't always the same thing.
-
I think between the new kit deal and the training ground sponsorship that would see around £10m added to income. Now we’re staying down I fully expect to see Recon as our main shirt sponsor shortly
-
They are I believe. Have to evidence market rate. Surely easier for us given Sky Sports 1 at 17:30 every other Saturday is the AVTV channel.
-
I think the EFL consider any sponsorship deal's fair value. So we cant just chuck a ton of money at it as a complete workaround
Why is the kit deal going to increase revenues?
-
You keep a bigger chunk as Fanatics own the production. Nike pay something like 10 dollars for ever shirt and then a portion to the sports team they're producing for. As Fanatics own the means of producing and distributing, the base cost is smaller per unit so they take a bigget share and the club receive a larger share.
What do you mean by fair value? It would surely have to be a subjective test? As we're the biggest goons on the block, bringing in the largest TV and paying audience, our Brand Goodwill would be valued significantly higher than tin pot outfits like the Noses or QPR.
-
If you do basic maths of salaries versus expected revenue next season I can see it being a difficult summer and like in most organisations you find it hard to get rid of the dross and lose talent. On a very fag packet basis you have;
Five loanees gone so best part of £150k per week recouped but the team is weaker.
One of Jack and Kodjia to go - say £20m.
Parachute payment £15m
Tv money £6m
Other income including season tickets £12m
Total bought in; £61m
Outlays:
McCaramack £40k per week.
Richards - £35k per week.
11 times first teamers average 20k per week
Staff and reserves and hangers on £15k per week.
Management costs - 60k per week
General overheads £5k per week.
Total outlay equals £42,940,000
Take one of the sales out above and it leaves us in precarious state when you add in the losses of the previous seasons.
-
You keep a bigger chunk as Fanatics own the production. Nike pay something like 10 dollars for ever shirt and then a portion to the sports team they're producing for. As Fanatics own the means of producing and distributing, the base cost is smaller per unit so they take a bigget share and the club receive a larger share.
What do you mean by fair value? It would surely have to be a subjective test? As we're the biggest goons on the block, bringing in the largest TV and paying audience, our Brand Goodwill would be valued significantly higher than tin pot outfits like the Noses or QPR.
I agree there would have to be a degree of subjectivity to the fair value assessment. I only read about it today so not sure how it works.
Thank for info on the shift deal. Sounds food. Though why doesn't everyone do something like that then?
-
Fucking autocorrect
If we have to sell freakish I'll be butter
-
Not sure to be honest. It's how it's done in the US with NFL and it seems we're opening up their entry to the UK market for them.
-
I tend to agree with the sums posted and those in the article. What would be key is a) how many sizeable transfers are still being dripped onto the P&L next season - McCormack, Kodjia & Hogan spring to mind; b) if they are then there’s little point in selling Ross or Scott for a much reduced sum as whilst it would generate cash it may have a negative impact on the P&L - if say we sold Hogan for £3m but still had £6m of costs to be posted wouldn’t that shows as a £3m loss?!; c) we are hardly in a position to write off costs paying off another manager and his staff - unless we do it on the drip; which brings us to d) how many other managers are we still paying off on the drip which could be eating into the P&L bottom line?
All in looks calamitous and suggests 2-3 big sales that could show a P&L surplus, BUT if half the Championship can’t balance the FFP books then maybe we just bite the bullet & see what happens if we were to get up...
-
Don't man city just pay a fine? Can't we offer the FA £1 million at £6 a week?
-
There was a lot of noise that FFP was being looked at and potentially changed? If 12 clubs have failed it for this year then a change is surely likely? Shows the majority cannot/won’t adhere to it as things stand.
-
On the Hogan question, I don't think so
Scenario where we don't sell him, we amortise say 2.5m pa of costs (10m over 4 years)
Scenario where we sell him for 5m we are better off. Though not sure if we can score the total income in one go (+2.5 net) or if it's also spread
I may be wrong though. But doesn't stand to reason that you're worse off financially for generating income. I don't think we treat players as assets on balance sheet that are subject to depreciation. Otherwise you'd get a double hit every time a players value declined
-
This is the best summary I found. Can't vouch for its veracity but I found it both convincing and obviously alarming. In short, says we need to generate c £40m next season. We can save a bit on the high earners leaving. But that looks like jack leaving to me. Can't imagine Kodjia's stock is high enough
https://heartoftheholte1874.wordpress.com/2018/02/20/villa-play-ffp-roulette-as-the-consequences-of-failing-this-season-becomes-clear/#more-37
Any accountant types able to comment on this piece?
I haven't double-checked his figures but I can't argue with the logic.
He's looked at it in more detail than I have the time for but he's got to the same position - we need to find £40-£50m to balance the books. That's simply impossible without selling players.
-
If we go bottom end as say it’s £35m, what is the going rate for sponsorship of a training ground, maxing out the value of shirt sponsorship, and even sponsoring the ground. Maybe £15m max all in? Then getting into the realms of fire sale, what land, etc. have we got left that we could offload? Clutching at every straw before reaching the inevitable conclusion...
-
We’ve got £8m from the Amavi sale to take into account as we deferred payment till this summer
-
Could really do with Traore getting a big move and Veretout as we have sell on clauses
-
There was talk of Veretout going to Juventus recently. If we have a sell on fee, let's hope that this move happens. Chelsea are also said to be looking at Traore too, he will cost at least £20 mill.
-
This is the best summary I found. Can't vouch for its veracity but I found it both convincing and obviously alarming. In short, says we need to generate c £40m next season. We can save a bit on the high earners leaving. But that looks like jack leaving to me. Can't imagine Kodjia's stock is high enough
https://heartoftheholte1874.wordpress.com/2018/02/20/villa-play-ffp-roulette-as-the-consequences-of-failing-this-season-becomes-clear/#more-37
Any accountant types able to comment on this piece?
Yes , exactly my understanding.
We are truly fucked.
-
On the Hogan question, I don't think so
Scenario where we don't sell him, we amortise say 2.5m pa of costs (10m over 4 years)
Scenario where we sell him for 5m we are better off. Though not sure if we can score the total income in one go (+2.5 net) or if it's also spread
I may be wrong though. But doesn't stand to reason that you're worse off financially for generating income. I don't think we treat players as assets on balance sheet that are subject to depreciation. Otherwise you'd get a double hit every time a players value declined
Players are Assets on the Balance sheet.
-
Amavi sale, £2 million a year saved on Gabby and 3 increased commercial deals. The question is, how much are the latter worth? £12 million combined? More?
-
As Jordan points out, it’s very difficult to see how we could comply without selling Jack and Chester and there still being no money to rebuild the team
-
I’ve fixed it. All we need to do is sell Jack to Recon FC (2018) for £200 million then take him back on loan indefinitely.
Piece of piss, this. Night all.
-
We are all speculating at the moment, lets see how it goes
-
Aye. We should let cricket have it's chance to make our piss boil for 3 months and see what happens where we are in August.
-
If I had the technical nouse,I would post a link,but basically it concerns Wyness' interview with Bham Mail March 14/15 2017, the interview about the need for contigency plans for another season,2018-19 ,in the Championship and sitting down with Xia and discussing those plans.
I find that,perhaps naively,reassuring in contrast to the lack of a business plan and a need to protect your business under Lerner. Wyness stressed a need to grow income.Are the kit deal and naming rights signs of that strategy ?Was Amavi 's deferred transfer fee,not only a precaution because of his injury concerns but also limiting the damage in 2018-9.Would we have signed Bedeau for 900k in Jan 2017 if it had been all about the absolute desperate need to gain promotion this season,as they knew he was not a signing for the immediate future.Surely,after such a meeting with Xia,the outcome couldn't have been,let's bet the ranch on promotion after being nowhere near the play offs at that time.
-
Fulham managed to hang to to Cairney last summer so I’m hopeful we can do the same with Jack
-
Fulham managed to hang to to Cairney last summer so I’m hopeful we can do the same with Jack
Because both situations are identical :-*
-
Our strategy clearly involved maximising income this year. We were hoping that people would buy some of these loaned out players. But I can't see anyone paying much for Gil, Gollini, Elphick, Tshibola, McCormack, De Laet, Gardner etc
The consequences as set out in that article are so severe that it would represent apalling stewardship of the club - a really huge gamble. So I'm hoping that there's something meaning it's not as bad as that. The messages from the club didn't suggest this level of seriosunes, but then I guess they don't ten to. I did struggle to see the flaw in the logic.
Anyone know what kind of sell on clause we've got with veretout or Adama?
The HS2 purchase of all / part of BMH could be crucial if it goes through in time
Do think we need the board to spell out some certainty
-
Fulham managed to hang to to Cairney last summer so I’m hopeful we can do the same with Jack
Because both situations are identical :-*
They had a high wage bill, no parachute money and were turning down £20m bids for West Ham and Newcastle. Not too dis similar
-
Intersting as ever analysis from The Swiss Rambler:
(http://i66.tinypic.com/2wc0ldd.png)
Yet again, thanks Bruce.
-
We are all speculating at the moment, lets see how it goes
Couldn't agree more. I think we all need to sit back and wait and see how things pan out.
-
Wyness said they're plans for either eventuality.
I hope that Wyness was right at the AGM that there is no need to sell Chester and Grealish. Them with a fit Kodjia and having Green, O'Hare and RHM offering the elusive pace we've lacked all year wouldn't be the worst.
A manager who can have us moving the ball with a bit of tempo wouldn't be the too shabby.
-
If we did get penalised for FFP (which seems to be at least 12 months away) isn't it a transfer embargo? Which still allows loans and frees to happen? Which is about all we have done in the last 12 months anyway. Like a lot have said already we are all speculating, and speculating while we are hurting is never good.
Cardiff and Fulham have been down here for about 4 years and both went back up, Wolves were in league 1 3 years ago, yes I know they have bought well, but did anyone thing they would go up like they did? A lot can happen, I hope we keep Jack, but when we sold Platt I was gutted, yet the players that came in gave us a spring board to push on for a great couple of years. Onwards and upwards hopefully
-
Has anyone got or read a suggested scenario where we can cut £50m of cost without selling the Crown Jewels?
We need to save just shy of a million quid a week, we aren’t going to get anywhere close to that by selling the deadwood and not renewing the big earners contracts. Are we?
-
Cardiff were on their last parachute payments and in a pretty dicey financial situation.
Fulham didn't spend vast amounts.
The Dingles duped the system by having a £25 million Champions League player in their midfield on £10k per week.
The Gerodies closed their eyes and put their head down and ran through it.
Brighton spent well.
Huddersfield didn't have a penny to rub together.
Many ways to skin a cat.
-
All involve having a manager that can either spot a gem or mould a team from nothing. Not Bruce.
-
Anyway fcuk football for a couple of months.
-
Do we have a confirmed list of players now out of contract and expected to be released?
McCormack and Richards not getting bumps in their salary following a promotion is, as has been said, one of the few "good" things about not going up as they'll finally be gone next summer ( unless McCormack was signed on a four year deal?).
-
PNE are warming up a new song “Twenty grand twenty grand Jackie Grealish...”
Funny how the FFP thing has come home to roost. It should have been implemented from the start and the “parachute” money is quite simply a joke that unfairly rewards failure.
Did no one see this coming no one?
-
PNE are warming up a new song “Twenty grand twenty grand Jackie Grealish...”
Funny how the FFP thing has come home to roost. It should have been implemented from the start and the “parachute” money is quite simply a joke that unfairly rewards failure.
Did no one see this coming no one?
The parachute payments are so a relegated team doesnt have to sell it's entire squad and replace them with kids.
-
PNE are warming up a new song “Twenty grand twenty grand Jackie Grealish...”
Funny how the FFP thing has come home to roost. It should have been implemented from the start and the “parachute” money is quite simply a joke that unfairly rewards failure.
Did no one see this coming no one?
The parachute payments are so a relegated team doesnt have to sell it's entire squad and replace them with kids.
That's what they're intended for, but as we've shown they actually get used to buy loads of players in the gamble that you'll get straight back up.
-
My plan would be as follows. If we have to sell a key player to balance the books then so be it.
My choice would be Kodjia. Not because i don't rate him, he's our best forward, but we managed pretty much the whole season without him. I reckon we'd get 12-15m for him. Give that to the accountants. If we can get grabban on loan again then great, if not someone else.
send back all the loans. like Snodgrass and Onamah. Whoever is manager will have to get a tune out of our youth players plus tshbola.
Try and sell Bjarnason, taylor, lansbury whelan elphick and any other deadwood we can move. Hopefully that will scrape about 8-10m together to spend on our defence
We go again.
-
I don't see many paying that for Kodjia, I fear it'll be Chester who goes for that amount.
-
I would differ in that Chester, Jedinak, Grealish and Kodjia represent a good spine and it would be my aim to keep that and adorn it with a mix; pace and movement has to be key.
-
If we lose Chester then it's almost an entire new back 5 next season and I can't see us getting it that right to mount a challenge.
-
Kodja would be the obvious sacrifice to me as well but surely we’d get back far more than we paid for him?
-
Kodjia is a proven championship striker. He's in his prime at 28, and he's an international. I think in today's market he's worth 12-15m of anyone's money. If he'd played and scored goals this season he'd be in the 20m price range.
-
If I were one of the relegated teams I’d pay £20m for him, easy for me to say though.
-
Tshbola, Gil, Gollini, McCormack, Hogan, Lansbury, Gardner, De Laet, Richards, Elphick. There's got to be a few quid in that lot, even if we are subsiding wages elsewhere as they have contributed almost nothing to the team this season. We have to move them on. If we keep Kodjia, Jedinak, Chester, Grealish then it's a great start for next season.
-
Under no circumstances should *insert name of player we signed from Reading for a silly amount of money who we sent on loan once saw how good he is* ever return to Villa. I can't cope with hearing that bloody Queen song each time his name is mentioned.
-
Tshbola, Gil, Gollini, McCormack, Hogan, Lansbury, Gardner, De Laet, Richards, Elphick. There's got to be a few quid in that lot, even if we are subsiding wages elsewhere as they have contributed almost nothing to the team this season. We have to move them on. If we keep Kodjia, Jedinak, Chester, Grealish then it's a great start for next season.
well i'm looking at getting 12-15m for the bank plus another 10m for signings and that's not even the FFP worse case scenario. I think we'd struggle to get half of that amount from the players you've listed
-
I’d have a guess that’s about a third of the weekly amount we need to save if we get rid of that lot. It’s a start.
-
Fulham managed to hang to to Cairney last summer so I’m hopeful we can do the same with Jack
Because both situations are identical :-*
They had a high wage bill, no parachute money and were turning down £20m bids for West Ham and Newcastle. Not too dis similar
Why don’t you read the article above and then explain how it’s the same.
-
This is the best summary I found. Can't vouch for its veracity but I found it both convincing and obviously alarming. In short, says we need to generate c £40m next season.
https://heartoftheholte1874.wordpress.com/2018/02/20/villa-play-ffp-roulette-as-the-consequences-of-failing-this-season-becomes-clear/#more-37
Any accountant types able to comment on this piece?
Before the wishful thinking crap, why don’t people read this.
-
I’m co confused
have we got no money to spend because we’ve got no money
or we have money but we can’t spend it because of FFP
-
I’m co confused
have we got no money to spend because we’ve got no money
or we have money but we can’t spend it because of FFP
The latter.
-
Do we have a confirmed list of players now out of contract and expected to be released?
McCormack and Richards not getting bumps in their salary following a promotion is, as has been said, one of the few "good" things about not going up as they'll finally be gone next summer ( unless McCormack was signed on a four year deal?).
Apart from the loans players the seniors contracts expiring in June
JT
Hutton
Agbonlahor
Samba
Bunn
(Hutton, JT and Gabby leaving would reduce wages)
These 3 below would be on chunky wages and 2019 expiry
Jedinak
Whelan
Richards
(Green, steer, Lyden younger players less wage)
Next are those expiring in 2020 so max price would be this summer for sales and club. players and agents will be looking at situation of contract as will the club.
29 year old Chester
Mccormack who is 31 will be 33 at expiry.
30 year old Elmo
29 year old Kodija
30 year old Bjarnason
30 year old adomah
Houirhane
Grealish
Tshibola minimal wage.
Here I think Mccormack and Bjarnason may well be 2 moved on. And possibly Kodjia.
2021
Hogan
Taylor
Lansbury
Bree
I think players leaving along with JT and Hutton will be Kodjia or Hogan. Bjarnason hopefully Mccormack and Richards too.
-
Tshbola, Gil, Gollini, McCormack, Hogan, Lansbury, Gardner, De Laet, Richards, Elphick. There's got to be a few quid in that lot, even if we are subsiding wages elsewhere as they have contributed almost nothing to the team this season. We have to move them on. If we keep Kodjia, Jedinak, Chester, Grealish then it's a great start for next season.
De Laet is a better right back than Elmo or Bree and should feature next season.
Hogan and McCormack could do well with a new manager, I wouldn't write them off just yet (though would take the cash if offered). If Grealish is sold then McCormack is the most obvious player for a front man to play off, other than maybe Gil.
Golini may be used, as if we can't sell him he is better than Steer.
Elphick might be OK with a new manager, he was certainly excellent for Bournemouth at this level.
Lansbury looked good at Forrest and is worth a try under a new manager too.
Tsibola, Richards, Gardner I can't see any use for. Also I am not convinced Jedinak and Whelan have the legs for another season.
-
The move for Elmo now looking unnecessary. When faith in Bree and Hutton to do the job. As well as da laet. However Bruce wanted some of his own and along with snoddy did well enough but would like to see him go. Elmo more of a wing back and not suited to system.
Think some players on those contracts will stick around another season.
Jedinak and Whelan can let contracts run and would probably be kept but would like them one to go but lack of funds prob have to keep them.
-
Tshibola, Elphick, McCormack, De Laet and Gollini all returning bloats the squad again.
I would keep Elphick as 3rd choice centre half unless a permanent move is on the card for him.
De Laet is lightening quick and I wouldn't mind him and Brew being our right back options.
Tshibola looked like he could have been a player, but his attitude is not there.
McCormack is for the glue factory and Gollini wants an Italian goal keeping coach.
-
I’m co confused
have we got no money to spend because we’ve got no money
or we have money but we can’t spend it because of FFP
The latter.
that’s alright then
-
Looking at the players most people would be ok with selling this is what i think we'd get in sales. You're welcome to argue otherwise. Note: what we paid for them is off the net and probably quesstimates in some cases
gollini 4.25m - hasn't made an impact on loan, 2 years on his contact. providing an italian team can afford his wages £1.5-2m
Richards - crocked, on massive wages. Unsellable. Only question is whether it would make sense to pay him off yet.
Tshbola - £5m stll young, done absolutely nothing. only played 8 games for us though. 2 years left £1.5m-2m but can anyone pay his wages
Whelan 1m - not worth anything of note at his age. may be persuaded to leave if someone offers him a 2 year contact.
Lansbury 2.75m - 3 years left on good wages. you'd need a decent club to come in for him. 2.5m
Gardner - last year of his contact. unlikely to get anything for him above a nominal fee
Bjarnason 2-3m - not really made an impact. probably get back what we paid for him 2-3m
Taylor - swap - Again wages could be a problem for suiters as well as the length of his contract - possibly 3-4m
Elphick 3m - last year of his contact. 1m to get him off the books
Hogan 8m - i good season in the championship versus 2 crap ones for us. 3 years left. Unlikely to be on peanuts 4m
McCormack 12m - is he worth anything after bruce publicly rubbished him? I can't see anyone taking a chance on him but 4m
Gill 3.25m - Again last year of his contact 1m
De Laet 2.5m - nominal fee if that
So i make that in an ideal world 23m clawed back. I don't think for a second we'll get that but even half of that would be something. Add in a conservative figure of 25k per week per player on wages next season and i make that an extra 15m saved on wages so concievably 38m saved. Obviously replacements would eat into that wage saving.
--
-
I’m co confused
have we got no money to spend because we’ve got no money
or we have money but we can’t spend it because of FFP
The latter.
So let's watch them at Recon Park wearing our Recon shirts.
that’s alright then
-
Given that Fulham apparently spent a net £3M (last season?) to go up, it further convinces me that having the right manager & club structure is more important than continuing to spunk money. It may take a few seasons to bring about such a revolution at VP, but shirley it's worth instigating - now we've hit financial Palookaville? Bruce continually bangs/banged on about experience being vital, but players only become experienced by being given a chance to play first team football when they're younger. His reluctance to utilise some of our young talent has aided & abetted the huge Summer clear-out which we're about to witness, so I sincerely hope The Suits have realised a radically different approach is now necessary to push this club forward. Bring it on, I say.
-
Looking at the players most people would be ok with selling this is what i think we'd get in sales. You're welcome to argue otherwise. Note: what we paid for them is off the net and probably quesstimates in some cases
gollini 4.25m - hasn't made an impact on loan, 2 years on his contact. providing an italian team can afford his wages £1.5-2m
Richards - crocked, on massive wages. Unsellable. Only question is whether it would make sense to pay him off yet.
Tshbola - £5m stll young, done absolutely nothing. only played 8 games for us though. 2 years left £1.5m-2m but can anyone pay his wages
Whelan 1m - not worth anything of note at his age. may be persuaded to leave if someone offers him a 2 year contact.
Lansbury 2.75m - 3 years left on good wages. you'd need a decent club to come in for him. 2.5m
Gardner - last year of his contact. unlikely to get anything for him above a nominal fee
Bjarnason 2-3m - not really made an impact. probably get back what we paid for him 2-3m
Taylor - swap - Again wages could be a problem for suiters as well as the length of his contract - possibly 3-4m
Elphick 3m - last year of his contact. 1m to get him off the books
Hogan 8m - i good season in the championship versus 2 crap ones for us. 3 years left. Unlikely to be on peanuts 4m
McCormack 12m - is he worth anything after bruce publicly rubbished him? I can't see anyone taking a chance on him but 4m
Gill 3.25m - Again last year of his contact 1m
De Laet 2.5m - nominal fee if that
So i make that in an ideal world 23m clawed back. I don't think for a second we'll get that but even half of that would be something. Add in a conservative figure of 25k per week per player on wages next season and i make that an extra 15m saved on wages so concievably 38m saved. Obviously replacements would eat into that wage saving.
--
In all likelihood, we would be looking at loaning out the majority of the above. Either that or we are going to have to reintegrate them into the squad and use them. I would personally look to offer Terry and Hutton one year deals, but the finances to do that might not be there.
-
yep, the likes of Hogan and McCormack would show up horrendous losses on FFP if they were sold. Others like whelan may be just worth keeping as cover as to replace them is going to cost more. Lansbury and Bjarnason would probably be the best bets to sell. Maybe give Tshibola another try. The others just loan if we can
-
Wyness said they're plans for either eventuality.
I hope that Wyness was right at the AGM that there is no need to sell Chester and Grealish. Them with a fit Kodjia and having Green, O'Hare and RHM offering the elusive pace we've lacked all year wouldn't be the worst.
A manager who can have us moving the ball with a bit of tempo wouldn't be the too shabby.
That's where I am. We have a good crop of kids coming through that most Championship clubs would die to have. Then, we're just not going to sell everyone. Yes players will leave, and yes, we're not going to shell out money like we've become accustomed to, and especially at this level. And that's a good thing in many ways. What we need is a manager who is going to make the very best of our resources, which at the end of the day should still put us in a very strong position headed into the new season. The relegated clubs will lose players and while they will have much larger budgets we've all seen how that can be wasted and provides no guarantee of success. So let's see what the next few weeks brings. I'm not at all with what has happened, and lay the blame squarely at the door of the manager. That's the very first change that needs to happen.
-
My view on the players coming and going is:
Gollini - get rid.
Richards - if he's unfit, we've got to get rid, either via the insurance or on a paid-up basis.
Tshibola - let a new manager have a go with him; still has some potential.
Whelan - back to Stoke? Try and offload.
Lansbury - get rid; doesn't matter for how much.
Gardner - let him play his contract out; or sell for nominal amount
Bjarnason - I'd keep him and play him, if he wants to do so.
Taylor - gotta get rid, to someone!
Elphick - let him play out the last year of his contact.
Hogan - ??? Depends on who the manager is, but take an offer to get rid if it comes.
McCormack - unlikely to be able to offload; can a new manager rehabilitate him?
Gill - just offload somewhere (if his wages are not a total blocker)
De Laet - keep him and play him!
God, there are some deadbeats on long contracts in this lot!
-
Given that Fulham apparently spent a net £3M (last season?) to go up, it further convinces me that having the right manager & club structure is more important than continuing to spunk money.
Our net spend last season was something like 20m in profit
-
I can see us,whilst not actively marketing,looking to shift a few of the profitable in FFP terms players.
We signed Lansbury and Hourihane on the relatively cheap,albeit with decent wages.Suspect we'd get circa 3million for Lansbury and 5/6 for Hourihane.
Additionally,in the way of Baker last season,where we made a substancial profit in FFP terms,I wouldn't be surprised if Andre Green ends up at a certain London club,billed as one for the future for 5/6 Million.
FFP will hinder getting rid of some of the squad as we'll be essentially receiving nothing or a loss for the likes of McCormack,Hogan,Tschibola .However,in that context I don't see us being unable to shift Gollini,Gardner,Elphick and Gil and co on,possibly even with a small operating profit.
As allegedly 38 Million is the break figure for March 2019,that'll leave us adrift by circa 20-22 Million.....When do we get that chunk off the HS2 Liability Fund and how much is the realistic re-naming rights to BMH?
Additionally we have the Amavi money to come in at around 7/8 million. If they move on,and both are heavily linked, sell on clauses for Traore and Vertout ..4/5 million?
Add all the wages we are getting rid of.... and the fact Wolves have basically showed the way to circumnavigate FFP will we be ok?
-
Given that Fulham apparently spent a net £3M (last season?) to go up, it further convinces me that having the right manager & club structure is more important than continuing to spunk money. It may take a few seasons to bring about such a revolution at VP, but shirley it's worth instigating - now we've hit financial Palookaville? Bruce continually bangs/banged on about experience being vital, but players only become experienced by being given a chance to play first team football when they're younger. His reluctance to utilise some of our young talent has aided & abetted the huge Summer clear-out which we're about to witness, so I hope sincerely hope The Suits have realised a radically different approach is now necessary to push this club forward. Bring it on, I say.
Revolution NOW. We're not evolving, we're not progressing, we're fucking dull and boring, and we've got exactly what our approach has deserved; nothing.
And as for "stability", our ever-dwindling income doesn't scream stable to me.
-
Just to clarify, for the three seasons just ended, our acc losses needed to be under 61 mill ( PL=35, CH= 13). We submitted ( as did all clubs) an estimated accounts for season just ended - by Mar 1st.
Now we wait.......
March 2019, figure drops from 61 to 39.
-
When Tony Xia took over and there was mention of Villa Park being re-named, I was completely against it but if things are bad financially, I really think this is the way to go - it could then go back to being Villa Park when the financial situation has improved.
-
Given that Fulham apparently spent a net £3M (last season?) to go up, it further convinces me that having the right manager & club structure is more important than continuing to spunk money. It may take a few seasons to bring about such a revolution at VP, but shirley it's worth instigating - now we've hit financial Palookaville? Bruce continually bangs/banged on about experience being vital, but players only become experienced by being given a chance to play first team football when they're younger. His reluctance to utilise some of our young talent has aided & abetted the huge Summer clear-out which we're about to witness, so I hope sincerely hope The Suits have realised a radically different approach is now necessary to push this club forward. Bring it on, I say.
Revolution NOW. We're not evolving, we're not progressing, we're fucking dull and boring, and we've got exactly what our approach has deserved; nothing.
And as for "stability", our ever-dwindling income doesn't scream stable to me.
I completely concur with not waiting a moment longer for the revolution. I'm just not sure it'll turn us into instant world-beaters: especially with the amount of over-paid & under-performing wasters that we still have stinkin' the place out.
-
Re: Transfer embargoes
This is dated Oct 2014 - no idea if anything has changed
How the embargo works
Any embargo would be applied before the start of January Transfer window. Under the ban, a club could still players however they will only be able to sign a player if it is on a ‘one a one-out, one in’ basis where both the following conditions apply:
The club has fewer than 24 registered players, and
The incoming player has wages of below 75% of the departing player.
Once an embargo is applied a club can apply in March to the Football League to have the ban removed. However the removal of the ban cannot take place until 31 May 2015 and will only occur where the club has submitted Interim Information that confirms the club is on target to pass the FFP test in the following December (i.e. relating to the 2014/15 Season).
It is therefore possible that some of the clubs that start their transfer embargo in 1 January 2015 will not have their ban removed during next summer’s transfer window.
-
As far as I know if you have a transfer embargo you cannot pay a fee of any kind, including compensation or loan fees.
-
When Tony Xia took over and there was mention of Villa Park being re-named, I was completely against it but if things are bad financially, I really think this is the way to go - it could then go back to being Villa Park when the financial situation has improved.
That wouldn't raise very much money
Stadium naming rights only really have value on new stadiums. People would still call Villa Park Villa Park, and that is why it would attract minimal money.
-
When Tony Xia took over and there was mention of Villa Park being re-named, I was completely against it but if things are bad financially, I really think this is the way to go - it could then go back to being Villa Park when the financial situation has improved.
That wouldn't raise very much money
Stadium naming rights only really have value on new stadiums. People would still call Villa Park Villa Park, and that is why it would attract minimal money.
no, I meant for Recon to sponsor it and for Xia to plough in as much money as legally possible - Recon Park.
Man City managed to plough in 400 million using this tactic:
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2011/jul/12/arsenal-manchester-city-premier-league
-
When Tony Xia took over and there was mention of Villa Park being re-named, I was completely against it but if things are bad financially, I really think this is the way to go - it could then go back to being Villa Park when the financial situation has improved.
That wouldn't raise very much money
Stadium naming rights only really have value on new stadiums. People would still call Villa Park Villa Park, and that is why it would attract minimal money.
It’s all a bit clutching at straws now.
-
When Tony Xia took over and there was mention of Villa Park being re-named, I was completely against it but if things are bad financially, I really think this is the way to go - it could then go back to being Villa Park when the financial situation has improved.
That wouldn't raise very much money
Stadium naming rights only really have value on new stadiums. People would still call Villa Park Villa Park, and that is why it would attract minimal money.
It’s all a bit clutching at straws now.
why? If Man City can use the tactic to inject 400m, why can't we use the same tactic to inject a substantial amount via Recon?
-
When Tony Xia took over and there was mention of Villa Park being re-named, I was completely against it but if things are bad financially, I really think this is the way to go - it could then go back to being Villa Park when the financial situation has improved.
That wouldn't raise very much money
Stadium naming rights only really have value on new stadiums. People would still call Villa Park Villa Park, and that is why it would attract minimal money.
It’s all a bit clutching at straws now.
why? If Man City can use the tactic to inject 400m, why can't we use the same tactic to inject a substantial amount via Recon?
It was a new stadium.
It is a long term commitment.
The rules and penalties of FFP had not been established.
There are independent firms that will provide an independent valuation of the naming rights and whatever that comes out at is the amount that will be allowed and as Paulie points out it will not be significant.
-
Just to clarify, for the three seasons just ended, our acc losses needed to be under 61 mill ( PL=35, CH= 13). We submitted ( as did all clubs) an estimated accounts for season just ended - by Mar 1st.
Now we wait.......
March 2019, figure drops from 61 to 39.
pretty sure we're fine for the last year it's the next onr that's the problem
As has been spelled out here about five times
-
As far as I know if you have a transfer embargo you cannot pay a fee of any kind, including compensation or loan fees.
That’s right, I think PWS - but if no loan fee, you are allowed to pay more of the players wages - which may then conflict with the “pay the new player less than the old one”
-
When Tony Xia took over and there was mention of Villa Park being re-named, I was completely against it but if things are bad financially, I really think this is the way to go - it could then go back to being Villa Park when the financial situation has improved.
That wouldn't raise very much money
Stadium naming rights only really have value on new stadiums. People would still call Villa Park Villa Park, and that is why it would attract minimal money.
It’s all a bit clutching at straws now.
why? If Man City can use the tactic to inject 400m, why can't we use the same tactic to inject a substantial amount via Recon?
It was a new stadium.
It is a long term commitment.
The rules and penalties of FFP had not been established.
There are independent firms that will provide an independent valuation of the naming rights and whatever that comes out at is the amount that will be allowed and as Paulie points out it will not be significant.
Man City had been fined £49 million for being in breach of FFP, which is one of the reasons they arranged £40 million a year sponsorship deal with Etihad.
-
I'm amazed that the FFP rules haven't fallen foul of EU competition and free movement of capital laws.
-
I'm amazed that the FFP rules haven't fallen foul of EU competition and free movement of capital laws.
At some point they will be, I guess it needs someone to be brave enough to take it on.
-
I'm amazed that the FFP rules haven't fallen foul of EU competition and free movement of capital laws.
You're not alone. Given the aim is to avoid monopolies and uncompetitive practice, I fail to see how interfering with an owners ability to invest in a business that would allow another club to climb the ladder fits in with that.
-
With how some clubs have taken the piss, i'm looking at you Leicester, I can see why it was brought in. And long term it probably helps some clubs not end up fecked and in administration.
Problem is if you have say, Bill Gates buy a club. He should be able to spend as much as he wants, as long as it isn't actually landing a club with debt. And that's then another problem if it's allowed, FFP and those responsible won't know how long term it is. No one will. Bill Gates could come in at say Barnsley, spend £200m of his own money on transfers, cover the massive increase in wages, non of it is loans just him happily spending and writing off his own money, but then a year or 2 later he gets bored and leaves, or passes away, saddling them with a massive wage bill they haven't a hope of being able to afford once Gates has gone. Then what for Barnsley.
-
After 2 years of excitement they can go back to sacrificing virgins to make sure the sun keeps rising I suppose.
Gaydamack at Portsmouth is probably the wrong un' these rules were designed to stop.
-
The likes of Rushden and Diamonds, Darlington etc as well.
-
I'm amazed that the FFP rules haven't fallen foul of EU competition and free movement of capital laws.
Didn't Wyness suggest in that interview that the club were challenging the FFP rules with Football League? Or did I imagine that?
-
It's naïve beyond belief to think that FFP was genuinely brought in to stop clubs going to the wall. As others have said, if that's the case, why can't gazillionaires just pump loads of their own money in?
FFP is designed to make sure the same name keep cropping up at the top of the major leagues so that those leagues can build some brands and make shit loads of money selling viewing rights around the world.
The game wouldn't be anywhere near as popular if the top 6 changed every year.
And now those clubs are established it's not a massive leap of faith to think that the next thing will be an expansion of the Champions League (in terms of games, not clubs) and a switch of those games to Saturdays and domestic league games to midweek. That way you can time Champions League games at a time the Far East don't have to set the alarm clock for 5am and they'll make even more money.
-
It's naïve beyond belief to think that FFP was genuinely brought in to stop clubs going to the wall. As others have said, if that's the case, why can't gazillionaires just pump loads of their own money in?
FFP is designed to make sure the same name keep cropping up at the top of the major leagues so that those leagues can build some brands and make shit loads of money selling viewing rights around the world.
The game wouldn't be anywhere near as popular if the top 6 changed every year.
And now those clubs are established it's not a massive leap of faith to think that the next thing will be an expansion of the Champions League (in terms of games, not clubs) and a switch of those games to Saturdays and domestic league games to midweek. That way you can time Champions League games at a time the Far East don't have to set the alarm clock for 5am and they'll make even more money.
Nail on head ..FFP was to stop another Man City spoiling the party of the established big teams
-
The ironic thing was this was all agreed nearly 10 years ago and some of the clubs who were all for it when they had their noses in the trough have suddenly found its them being penalised. Be careful what you wish for i guess.
-
I think it's a bit of both, it must have been embarrassing for the leagues to have so many clubs going into administration. From 2008-20013 a quick Google and 20 clubs from the Conference North/South level upwards went into administration, 12 were league clubs, since 2013 i'm not sure any have. So something is working somewhere.
And they definitely always want Man Utd, Real, etc at the top of their leagues.
-
Do debts transfer from one owner to the next in FFP world? Could Recon (or another of Xia's businesses) buy Villa, effectively re-setting the clock back to zero whilst all other variables stay the same? That system would be ripe for abuse but it seems unfair that a new regime would be responsible for the previous owners mis-management.
-
Next season will be our third under Recon so it doesn't matter
-
FFP is also creating a new problem for the Premiership in that it is cementing small, unfashionable clubs in the league at the expense of others (like us) who pull in more viewers. I can't ses the Chinese paying a fortune to see Bournemouth play Huddersfield or Watford play Brighton so the product will in time be less able to attract the big TV money of the past both at home and abroad. Last year, our games were often pulling better viewer numbers than many Premiership games.
-
We are really under pressure now. The new season kicks off in 9 weeks. There’s a World Cup in the middle of it all meaning business will probably be slow. In addition the window closes earlier this year. It is partly for this reason they will stick with Bruce unless he does his usual resigning trick. I’m genuinely concerned.
-
Next season will be our third under Recon so it doesn't matter
Yeah, but Xia buys us again, wearing a disguise, using another of his businesses as the purchaser. There's so little transparency with Chinese businesses that I'm sure they could fabricate the paperwork.
-
I think it's a bit of both, it must have been embarrassing for the leagues to have so many clubs going into administration. From 2008-20013 a quick Google and 20 clubs from the Conference North/South level upwards went into administration, 12 were league clubs, since 2013 i'm not sure any have. So something is working somewhere.
And they definitely always want Man Utd, Real, etc at the top of their leagues.
Trying to bring some sort of financial common sense into play was a good thing, but a one size fits all approach that tries to work for the Premier League with teams like Man U and Man City, and League 2 with teams like Scunthorpe and Hartlepool was always going to end with disparities.
-
FFP is also creating a new problem for the Premiership in that it is cementing small, unfashionable clubs in the league at the expense of others (like us) who pull in more viewers. I can't ses the Chinese paying a fortune to see Bournemouth play Huddersfield or Watford play Brighton so the product will in time be less able to attract the big TV money of the past both at home and abroad. Last year, our games were often pulling better viewer numbers than many Premiership games.
Which is why the big clubs are now angling to tear up the TV deal that distrubutes money evenly and take more for themselves...basically the same as Real and Barca do in Spain.
FFP based on revenue just helps already established clubs who just use their name to sign more marketing deals..hence why Man United have official Paint and Mattress suppliers and Liverpool have their players shaving their chests on tv ads..
-
They could've just borrowed ideas off the colonials, like global merchandising revenue redistribution and a salary cap.
-
Fulham managed to hang to to Cairney last summer so I’m hopeful we can do the same with Jack
Fulham selling McCormack to us for 12m helped them balanced the books nicely and avoided FFP penalties.
Does show you can sell a big player which helps rebuild the first 11 at least.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/dec/15/leeds-blackburn-nottingham-forest-financial-fair-play-transfer-embargo
Forest, Leeds and Blackburn all punished in 2014 and restricted to free transfers and loans with special criteria.
-
Is the Wolves style model out of the question? I'm no expert on these things but you'd think an agent would rather his players be put in the shop window/earn him his return far more with us than with anybody else. Larger fan base also provides greater return for commercial opportunities and merchandise.
-
If you look at the real problems in the finances it's the stupid long term contracts we entered into in the sherwood and rdm period that have given us unusable dross on megabucks for years.
Conversely SB's deals are loans and short-term (in the main) and don't leave us in financial meltdown. I think he's under-rated on this front.
Even if you look at some of his longer term deals like Lansbury or Bjarni they are usable or sellable. Hogan probably the worst panic buy but I can see him going, albeit at a significant loss.
We will just have to use some younger players, and I'm happy with that. Make do and mend.
-
Fulham managed to hang to to Cairney last summer so I’m hopeful we can do the same with Jack
Fulham selling McCormack to us for 12m helped them balanced the books nicely and avoided FFP penalties.
Does show you can sell a big player which helps rebuild the first 11 at least.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/dec/15/leeds-blackburn-nottingham-forest-financial-fair-play-transfer-embargo
Forest, Leeds and Blackburn all punished in 2014 and restricted to free transfers and loans with special criteria.
McCormack is a good example. He'd been at Fulham for 2 years I believe, and they sold him to us for a similar price to what they paid.
Under most explanations of FFP I've seen thats only moderately helpful. Fulham would have an amortised cost of (12/4=) £3m pa, assuming a four year contract. So £6m outstanding after two years.
We pay £12m upfront. So the benefit to Fulham is only £6m for FFP purposes. It helps again next year when Fulham don't have to incur the extra £3m hit.
I'm not sure I'm convinced this is right yet. But I've seen this explanation in a few places.
If it is right, you really need to be selling home grown players, or those who've been with you a while, or who've massively increased their value, if you're trying to head off a crisis year.
But given that we only really have grealish in any of those categories, and at the start of the season he probably wasnt worth mega bucks or in that much demand, I'm thinking there must have been alternatives considered or the above is wrong somehow
-
If you look at the real problems in the finances it's the stupid long term contracts we entered into in the sherwood and rdm period that have given us unusable dross on megabucks for years.
Conversely SB's deals are loans and short-term (in the main) and don't leave us in financial meltdown. I think he's under-rated on this front.
Even if you look at some of his longer term deals like Lansbury or Bjarni they are usable or sellable. Hogan probably the worst panic buy but I can see him going, albeit at a significant loss.
We will just have to use some younger players, and I'm happy with that. Make do and mend.
We should definitely sell Hogan and Lansbury if we can
But I think both are on 40k a week. Who do we think is going to pay that for guys who couldn't cut the mustard here? There's only really the relegated clubs who might feasibly consider it but thst would seem a stupid decision
-
Swiss Ramble
@SwissRamble
13m13 minutes ago
More
For 2018/19, #AVFC parachute payment falls from £34m to £17m. If we assume no other changes and zero profit on player sales, we can see how much money Villa need to find to meet FFP limit of £39m. The shortfall is £45m, which must be made up by cuts in wage bill or player sales.
Doesn't sound too good ...
-
Fulham managed to hang to to Cairney last summer so I’m hopeful we can do the same with Jack
Fulham selling McCormack to us for 12m helped them balanced the books nicely and avoided FFP penalties.
Does show you can sell a big player which helps rebuild the first 11 at least.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/dec/15/leeds-blackburn-nottingham-forest-financial-fair-play-transfer-embargo
Forest, Leeds and Blackburn all punished in 2014 and restricted to free transfers and loans with special criteria.
McCormack is a good example. He'd been at Fulham for 2 years I believe, and they sold him to us for a similar price to what they paid.
Under most explanations of FFP I've seen thats only moderately helpful. Fulham would have an amortised cost of (12/4=) £3m pa, assuming a four year contract. So £6m outstanding after two years.
We pay £12m upfront. So the benefit to Fulham is only £6m for FFP purposes. It helps again next year when Fulham don't have to incur the extra £3m hit.
I'm not sure I'm convinced this is right yet. But I've seen this explanation in a few places.
If it is right, you really need to be selling home grown players, or those who've been with you a while, or who've massively increased their value, if you're trying to head off a crisis year.
But given that we only really have grealish in any of those categories, and at the start of the season he probably wasnt worth mega bucks or in that much demand, I'm thinking there must have been alternatives considered or the above is wrong somehow
You’re right that there’s a profit realised on the disposal of an asset, but also the saving on £2m worth of wages per annum is a big FFP bonus for subsequent years.
-
Is it possible to work out how much we are going to save on the wage bill from all of the out of contract players? I would assume that all of the loan players will go back to their respective clubs and we wouldn’t renew contracts for Agnonlahor, Terry, Hutton etc.
-
I guess around £10 million.
-
I think it's a bit of both, it must have been embarrassing for the leagues to have so many clubs going into administration. From 2008-20013 a quick Google and 20 clubs from the Conference North/South level upwards went into administration, 12 were league clubs, since 2013 i'm not sure any have. So something is working somewhere.
And they definitely always want Man Utd, Real, etc at the top of their leagues.
Trying to bring some sort of financial common sense into play was a good thing, but a one size fits all approach that tries to work for the Premier League with teams like Man U and Man City, and League 2 with teams like Scunthorpe and Hartlepool was always going to end with disparities.
I always felt domestically Pompey were the textbook case for FFP.
A club with limit of 20k capacity, hardly any coporate cash coming in yet were paying players like Sol Campbell, Diarra and David James 80k a week (in 2007) and relied on TV money to do this. Think their wage bill after they won the cup in 2008 was 95% wages to income turnover.
Then said owner decides overnight he wants to sell club and dosen't want to put anything more in, huge firesale, relegation and then they fall down the divisions as Sunderland have also done and we could easily have done if Lerner hadn't sold us in 2016.
Of course Pompey were massively over achieving but they should never have over stretched themselves to end up as low as league 2. Anyone can see that although probably some on here would sign up for league 2 if it meant seeing us win the FA cup again! (wink)
I have a bit more leeway with this as it makes clubs think before splashing stupid amounts...or at least it should. We obviously gambled we'd get up within two years so will now have to face the consquences of failing to achieve that aim.
Problem now is with the ridiculous TV money in the premier league so many championship clubs will overspend to try to reach the milk and honey. If 10 + do that as seems the case only three can get promoted so very much odds against.
Once you're up in the prem the demand is then to spend 100m + as everyone else is doing it so your wage bill becomes stupid again.
I can see in ten years time every premier league club spending 200m in a summer. Three will still get relegated and 13/14 will finish out of european places so not really sure what the long term aim of all this is.
-
Terry - 60k p/w
Gabby - 30k p/w
Hutton - 30k p/w
Snoddy - 40k p/w
Johnston - 25k p/w
Grabban - 30k p/w
Onomah - 20k p/w
Axel - 10k p/w
Puts it closer to £12.5 million, plus £4-5 million from the potential disposal of McCormack, Tshibola, Gollini et al and possibly £4-5 million in wages saved. £8 million for Amavi [which I assume would be worth £5 million after amortization] and then anybody's guess on what the RECON commercial deals are worth.
I cannot envisage they're worth less than £12-15 million additionally on top of the [not a lot] value of the current shirt manufacturing and sponsorship. That would leave us neutral and not give us room to add. But then the punishments financially are scaled and its a question of how seriously do they want to take it and I have serious doubts if we'd be the worse offenders or even alone. SHA appear in far bigger difficulties.
I'm also unsure whether that hypothetical £39 million* includes the £8 million Xia is allowed to inject as equity.
* I say hypothetical as its based on nothing changing, when things already have.
-
Is the Wolves style model out of the question? I'm no expert on these things but you'd think an agent would rather his players be put in the shop window/earn him his return far more with us than with anybody else. Larger fan base also provides greater return for commercial opportunities and merchandise.
I think we've passed that boat.
What's forgotten about Wolves is they were actually in year 2 of their project, the first year they just appointed poor managers like Walter Zenga and Paul Lambert which had them in the bottom half for most of that season.
They learnt from it, continued buying in good players and delivered in the second year. We didn't.
-
The thing is, you don't need to spend fortunes and if we can keep the core of our squad together, we don't need to sign too many players either. Defensively we will need some work, but ultimately we have been less than the sum of our parts this season.
Whoever comes in, touch wood, will hopefully by the time the window shuts, have Chester, Jedinak, Grealish and Kodjia running up the spine of the side. With some more pace and attacking intent surrounding that it ought to be a very good side again.
-
According to one of the papers yesterday Jedinak is on 45k a week and Lansbury 35k a week.
If Henri can somehow wrangle 35k a week when I don't think he's played a single minute of premier league football in his career then I imagine Hourihane wouldn't be far off that. If he isn't he needs to sack his agent.
Then you factor in players dropping down from the prem like AEM and Whelan.
As much as I'm trying to put a better spin on things we are in a bit of a hole with yet again the wage bill compared to what we're turning over. We're paying our squad players not far off what the squad players at Spurs are getting.
Either we let Steve Bruce get on with it to sort out his own mess of putting together an ageing expensive squad or we gave that as the main reason for mutually consenting his deal.
Of course that will have to be another manager we pay off so would that go against us on FFP?
-
If we could sign Hernandez on a free then I would sell Kodjia
-
The thing is, you don't need to spend fortunes and if we can keep the core of our squad together, we don't need to sign too many players either. Defensively we will need some work, but ultimately we have been less than the sum of our parts this season.
Whoever comes in, touch wood, will hopefully by the time the window shuts, have Chester, Jedinak, Grealish and Kodjia running up the spine of the side. With some more pace and attacking intent surrounding that it ought to be a very good side again.
We played less than the sum of our parts but we still accumulated 80 + points.
I really can't see us getting close to that next season and you have no chance of going up automatically if you don't get past 80 points.
So play offs at best which everyone loves now of course. One day we'll finally have an 11 that will play a great game in a major final at Wembley but the much lauded been it, seen it 11 couldn't.
I'd personally let go of SB, get in Dean Smith,tell him he has a season to reconstruct the team and get us in shape (as SB did in 16/17), tell him not to worry about dissent from the Holte End if we draw 1-1 at home to Forest and let him get on with things.
He's had two top 10 finishes with Brentford so the guy can manage at this level. Anyone who expects us to go up next season (automatically) will be a bit bonkers as too much work to do. We can be in the mix for top 6 if we sign well.
-
Depends who we keep. A fit Jack and Kodjia, why not? We need more pace, we lacked it all season.
Plenty of shite keeps going up without spending much.
-
The thing is, you don't need to spend fortunes and if we can keep the core of our squad together, we don't need to sign too many players either. Defensively we will need some work, but ultimately we have been less than the sum of our parts this season.
Whoever comes in, touch wood, will hopefully by the time the window shuts, have Chester, Jedinak, Grealish and Kodjia running up the spine of the side. With some more pace and attacking intent surrounding that it ought to be a very good side again.
We played less than the sum of our parts but we still accumulated 80 + points.
I really can't see us getting close to that next season and you have no chance of going up automatically if you don't get past 80 points.
So play offs at best which everyone loves now of course. One day we'll finally have an 11 that will play a great game in a major final at Wembley but the much lauded been it, seen it 11 couldn't.
I'd personally let go of SB, get in Dean Smith,tell him he has a season to reconstruct the team and get us in shape (as SB did in 16/17), tell him not to worry about dissent from the Holte End if we draw 1-1 at home to Forest and let him get on with things.
He's had two top 10 finishes with Brentford so the guy can manage at this level. Anyone who expects us to go up next season (automatically) will be a bit bonkers as too much work to do. We can be in the mix for top 6 if we sign well.
I completely agree with you mate. There are those who have and will say it's a massive risk, but everything is. Holding on to SB, for me, is a massive risk, and I can't see it paying off.
-
Chelts seems confident he's going. I do feel a new approach is needed. We've tried to sledgehammer our way out, got close, but now a bit of precision is required.
-
I think the most inevitable thing about losing in the play-off final is all of the doom and gloom around FFP and potentially being stuck in this league for a long time.
We finished with 5 loan players last year. When we start in August I would expect at least close to that again. Davis, Bree and Green will all play bigger parts next year, so I think to say that we will be nowhere near the top two next year is guesswork.
Most sides in English football and all sides at this level build a team for 12 months to try and achieve their objectives. Once all the white noise settles down, we have a settled coaching structure and boardroom structure to be able to get a more than competitive squad together.
-
Chelts seems confident he's going. I do feel a new approach is needed. We've tried to sledgehammer our way out, got close, but now a bit of precision is required.
Is Chelts info current or based on info from a while back that if we don't meet certain targets he will go?
If the latter, it may be that Tone thinks the injuries were mitigating circumstances and we got close enough to give him another go.
Personally I want a change, but not meeting a specific target is rarely as black and white as it may seem.
-
I think a parting of the ways would be good for Steve Bruce long term aswell.
I know he's a Geordie rolls his sleeves up type of guy as he keeps on saying but with all that's happened to him off the pitch he probably needs time away from football even if he dosen't realise it.
Come back in a years time and pretty sure likes of Norwich will need a manager so he'd have plenty of job offers.
Please don't tell me in two years time he'd get a Norwich promoted from this league and we'd still be down here working out if we could sell Hepburn-Murphy to Brentford for 40m to meet the latest FFP requirements!
-
All of that is, in my opinion, just further proof that the correct course for us to take is to continue to develop youngsters (and sign promising 15-16 year olds into the academy from other clubs) and when we do spend money it should be on players who will either retain the value or who can part of things for a number of years. If we want to add experienced players on frees/bosmans then that's ok but once you're paying big money for players in their late 20s you're on a course towards ruin, we've seen this story play out twice now.
-
The thing is, you don't need to spend fortunes and if we can keep the core of our squad together, we don't need to sign too many players either. Defensively we will need some work, but ultimately we have been less than the sum of our parts this season.
Whoever comes in, touch wood, will hopefully by the time the window shuts, have Chester, Jedinak, Grealish and Kodjia running up the spine of the side. With some more pace and attacking intent surrounding that it ought to be a very good side again.
We played less than the sum of our parts but we still accumulated 80 + points.
I really can't see us getting close to that next season and you have no chance of going up automatically if you don't get past 80 points.
So play offs at best which everyone loves now of course. One day we'll finally have an 11 that will play a great game in a major final at Wembley but the much lauded been it, seen it 11 couldn't.
I'd personally let go of SB, get in Dean Smith,tell him he has a season to reconstruct the team and get us in shape (as SB did in 16/17), tell him not to worry about dissent from the Holte End if we draw 1-1 at home to Forest and let him get on with things.
He's had two top 10 finishes with Brentford so the guy can manage at this level. Anyone who expects us to go up next season (automatically) will be a bit bonkers as too much work to do. We can be in the mix for top 6 if we sign well.
Agree with you both that we played less than the sum of our parts,ie we underperformed,which is an indictment of Bruce.All we should ask of any manager is that we progress under him with the financial situation ,at least initially,
being a factor in measuring progress. As you say,getting us in shape so we can be optimistic about future seasons would be acceptable.
The situation is rather like following MON after his stint at clubs but we seem to have a more clued up board than previous regimes.
-
Situaiton is similar to when we came down in 2016 I think. Bloated squad, lots of questions about our future direction.
I think at this level we're going to have two year cycles, a year of consolidation and then the next one we have a good crack at promotion as we just have. I see it panning out that way anyway.
If in 2020 we still haven't gone up then we do run the risk of being another Forest/Sheff Weds/Leeds as those sort of teams became stagnant when they didn' go up after 3/4 years and indeed all went down to league one so things could go very much worse than just losing play off finals.
-
According to one of the papers yesterday Jedinak is on 45k a week and Lansbury 35k a week.
If Henri can somehow wrangle 35k a week when I don't think he's played a single minute of premier league football in his career then I imagine Hourihane wouldn't be far off that. If he isn't he needs to sack his agent.
Then you factor in players dropping down from the prem like AEM and Whelan.
As much as I'm trying to put a better spin on things we are in a bit of a hole with yet again the wage bill compared to what we're turning over. We're paying our squad players not far off what the squad players at Spurs are getting.
Either we let Steve Bruce get on with it to sort out his own mess of putting together an ageing expensive squad or we gave that as the main reason for mutually consenting his deal.
Of course that will have to be another manager we pay off so would that go against us on FFP?
How the hell did we end up paying those wages , its not like we were in competition with other teams for them ..Jedinek I can excuse a little as at least he was dropping down a league but Lanbury really FFS
-
I think that whatever happens we will be competitive next season, we've just missed capitalising on the massive advantage we've had for these past two seasons.
-
I think that whatever happens we will be competitive next season, we've just missed capitalising on the massive advantage we've had for these past two seasons.
Those wages ( and I expect we paid a significant % of wages to the loan players as well ) make a mockery of Bruce's continual I have had to work with FFP crap to put in perspective we lost to a Bolton side with a £5k a week wage cap due to going into administration ..thats real hardship not paying Terry 70k a week , Lansbury 35k a week etc ...
-
I think that whatever happens we will be competitive next season, we've just missed capitalising on the massive advantage we've had for these past two seasons.
Those wages ( and I expect we paid a significant % of wages to the loan players as well ) make a mockery of Bruce's continual I have had to work with FFP crap to put in perspective we lost to a Bolton side with a £5k a week wage cap due to going into administration ..thats real hardship not paying Terry 70k a week , Lansbury 35k a week etc ...
I would agree except that surely as a club we are operating at a much higher level than Bolton. In terms of club size, support, TV exposure, etc. there's no comparison.
-
Lansbury and hourihane were coming to the end of their contracts so were well placed to negotiate big deals
I think Ads' maths above was a little reasuring. Let's say we do need 40:
C 12 less in wages from those leaving, factoring in win and goal bonuses
C 8 from Amavi
C 1 from Gil
C 3 from sell on fees for veretout and Adama (complete guess,)
C 3 from other non playing sales
C 3 from Recon sponsoring BMH
Theres a lot of guesswork there. But that would be 30 or so
So we need 10 more, but have to factor in the need for some more players (keeper, CB) and amortisation
So would need to sell more than £10m worth of players. But perhaps would be possible to sell, say adomah, hourihane and Hogan?
-
According to one of the papers yesterday Jedinak is on 45k a week and Lansbury 35k a week.
If Henri can somehow wrangle 35k a week when I don't think he's played a single minute of premier league football in his career then I imagine Hourihane wouldn't be far off that. If he isn't he needs to sack his agent.
Then you factor in players dropping down from the prem like AEM and Whelan.
As much as I'm trying to put a better spin on things we are in a bit of a hole with yet again the wage bill compared to what we're turning over. We're paying our squad players not far off what the squad players at Spurs are getting.
Either we let Steve Bruce get on with it to sort out his own mess of putting together an ageing expensive squad or we gave that as the main reason for mutually consenting his deal.
Of course that will have to be another manager we pay off so would that go against us on FFP?
How the hell did we end up paying those wages , its not like we were in competition with other teams for them ..Jedinek I can excuse a little as at least he was dropping down a league but Lanbury really FFS
Lansbury was captain at Forest so was probably their highest earner. Ditto Hourihane. £30/£35k a week seems like about the going rate for a mid-table Championship team captain. You can probably apply the same logic to McCormack (Fulham captain) and Jedi (Palace captain). It's only the Villa that sign players on this level as squad players.
Therein lies the problem with Bruce's shit or bust approach, which is not a million miles away from MON's shit or bust approach to getting in the Champions League. The business plan makes sense if you achieve the target. If you don't though, the house of cards collapses pretty quickly.
-
Yep.
The spurs strategy was more medium term. Focus on large quantities of younger players some of whom will come good and some won't
Anyway, that's all old hat now
-
Lansbury and hourihane were coming to the end of their contracts so were well placed to negotiate big deals
I think Ads' maths above was a little reasuring. Let's say we do need 40:
C 12 less in wages from those leaving, factoring in win and goal bonuses
C 8 from Amavi
C 1 from Gil
C 3 from sell on fees for veretout and Adama (complete guess,)
C 3 from other non playing sales
C 3 from Recon sponsoring BMH
Theres a lot of guesswork there. But that would be 30 or so
So we need 10 more, but have to factor in the need for some more players (keeper, CB) and amortisation
So would need to sell more than £10m worth of players. But perhaps would be possible to sell, say adomah, hourihane and Hogan?
If you sell Hogan for 5 then you still write off another 4 mil, so now you need to find another 4 and assuming Hourihane and Adonai break even on value that’s 14 mil profit they still have to find, if your Mathis are right.
The obvious answer is sell Grealish, and I can not see how that won’t happen.
-
That's true on Hogan. You'd save his wages on top of course
But hourihane only cost 1.5. so you'd see the bulk of what, £7m to a gullible buyer plus £1.5m in wages?
-
In two minds about Hourihane. Limited but does score goals at this level.
Remember the Wyness line about needing 80 goals to go up automatically?
Wolves got 82 and Fulham 79 so Cardiff were the only ones to buck that trend as they got up with just 69 goals. (we scored 72).
So as minimum you need one striker capable of hitting 20 goals (Grabban would've done that for us over a full season), a midifelder capable of hitting 10 + (Hourihane) and one of the wider players also getting double figures (Adomah before xmas).
Alright selling these players but we need to find as good replacements with the limited budget we have.
-
Its gonna involve some hard choices.
We'll need our strikers to contribute more as well
-
Hopefully, Gollini going to Atalanta? 3.5m Euro's. Another loss but we'll take the money.
-
We have similar players in quite a few positions.
I don't think there's much between Bjarni and Hourihane at all. Bjarni scored some nice goals in his appearences so think he'd hit 10 if he was a week in week out player.
We obviously can't carry Whelan and Jedinak in the squad next season.
De Laet is one who's been forgotten and back from his loan but again you would have him, Bree and AEM as RB options.
Lansbury can't even make the 18 now, he needs to be moved out if possible.
-
Lansbury and hourihane were coming to the end of their contracts so were well placed to negotiate big deals
I think Ads' maths above was a little reasuring. Let's say we do need 40:
C 12 less in wages from those leaving, factoring in win and goal bonuses
C 8 from Amavi
C 1 from Gil
C 3 from sell on fees for veretout and Adama (complete guess,)
C 3 from other non playing sales
C 3 from Recon sponsoring BMH
Theres a lot of guesswork there. But that would be 30 or so
So we need 10 more, but have to factor in the need for some more players (keeper, CB) and amortisation
So would need to sell more than £10m worth of players. But perhaps would be possible to sell, say adomah, hourihane and Hogan?
If you sell Hogan for 5 then you still write off another 4 mil, so now you need to find another 4 and assuming Hourihane and Adonai break even on value that’s 14 mil profit they still have to find, if your Mathis are right.
The obvious answer is sell Grealish, and I can not see how that won’t happen.
Using your example, if somebody wanted to buy Hogan for £5m, wouldn't you ask for a £1m loan fee and a guarantee to buy for a further £4m at the end of next season. Thus delaying the write off of part of the loss.
-
You can delay the loss on sale but you can't delay the amortisation.
If we're saying Hogan's book value is £9m and it's amortising at £3m per year a sale for £5m would crystallise a £4m loss.
Taking a loan fee of £1m would result in a £3m amortisation charge - net result £2m.
So yeah, short term its better but only if the other club is committed to buying the player. Otherwise you stand to lose £4m if you can't sell him the following year.
-
One measly win against bloody Fulham and we wouldn't be having to worry about any of this crap. Ffs.
-
One measly win against bloody Fulham and we wouldn't be having to worry about any of this crap. Ffs.
I keep seeing Jack's mazy run.
That slight deflection on the shot..
-
Problem now is with the ridiculous TV money in the premier league so many championship clubs will overspend to try to reach the milk and honey. If 10 + do that as seems the case only three can get promoted so very much odds against.
Once you're up in the prem the demand is then to spend 100m + as everyone else is doing it so your wage bill becomes stupid again.
I can see in ten years time every premier league club spending 200m in a summer. Three will still get relegated and 13/14 will finish out of european places so not really sure what the long term aim of all this is.
I don't see how a rich owner leaving a club with a massive wage bill is that different to getting relegated from the Prem. Three clubs get relegated with players on enormous contracts that the relegated clubs can no longer afford due to less tv money coming in and parachute payments give them a go at coming straight back up. That doesn't work, but the owner, who is cash rich, is prevented from speculating. So they sell off the most expensive assets and put their feet up with the also-rans, probably tumbling through the league system. Meanwhile, those clubs with brands to sell, built when FFP was not in place, hoover up the tv cash and get official tyre sponsors, or whatever.
FFP is basically a punishment for being shit. It has nothing to do with competitiveness or wanting to stop clubs going out of business; if it was, then they wouldn't impose fines and points deductions or transfer embargoes. It's about protecting the business plan of a few elite clubs.
-
Spot on. The financial fair play rules have never remotely been about financial fair play.
-
Doug would have fucking loved FFP, the tight fisted fucker.
-
Doug would have fucking loved FFP, the tight fisted fucker.
Don't be so sure - his exorbitant salary would've counted towards the losses too.
-
In slightly related news Cal O’Hare out for 10 weeks and will miss pre-season & the start of 18/19. So there’s one we can’t just slot in to plug a gap...
-
Spot on. The financial fair play rules have never remotely been about financial fair play.
Fair play would have been some kind of wage cap etc this way it just keep the same clubs at the top .
-
Can we wait till January to sell any of our better players.The chances are that Grealish and Kodjia will increase in value or a youngster will become valuable property.Certainly get rid of more average players to reduce the wage bill and bring in fees.
-
In two minds about Hourihane. Limited but does score goals at this level.
Good bench option for me to come on in the latter stages of games. I like Bjarnason but I think we could sell him if he does OK at the World Cup,
-
In two minds about Hourihane. Limited but does score goals at this level.
Good bench option for me to come on in the latter stages of games. I like Bjarnason but I think we could sell him if he does OK at the World Cup,
Bjarni wanted to go in January but was persuaded to stay on until the summer. He's the sort that wants to be starting every week and wasn't happy when he was dropped after the good run of form he had.
Can certainly see him wanting away in next few weeks but certainly wise as a good tournament will only increase his values and he did well at euro 2016.
-
Can we wait till January to sell any of our better players.The chances are that Grealish and Kodjia will increase in value or a youngster will become valuable property.Certainly get rid of more average players to reduce the wage bill and bring in fees.
Yes I was thinking the same. But it's obviously a risk as the market is less reliable in January. We really would be desperate at that point. So can't see us going into January still needing to find £20m. Unless we're ultimately prepared to risk breaching the rules. Which maybe we are
-
A bit more invention perhaps - Villa Park becoming the "Recon Arena" or "Recon Villa Park" for £30m a season for 5 years? Has Dr Tony got the financial clout??
-
One of the less obvious reasons I wanted us to go up was to see the colour of Dr T's money. I do believe he's genuine and has the financial clout, but there is that nagging suspicion he is hiding behind the FFP thing. Had we gone up there would have been no excuse and we could have seen what he was all about in his plan to get us to Eurpoean domination.
I'm still confused as to how some teams seem to be able to swerve it better than others - surely Wolves were outspending their turnover - and yet we always seem to have to fall in line.
-
You can delay the loss on sale but you can't delay the amortisation.
If we're saying Hogan's book value is £9m and it's amortising at £3m per year a sale for £5m would crystallise a £4m loss.
Taking a loan fee of £1m would result in a £3m amortisation charge - net result £2m.
So yeah, short term its better but only if the other club is committed to buying the player. Otherwise you stand to lose £4m if you can't sell him the following year.
That's why I said part. It depends how bad the financial position is as to what we have to do.
I don't things are as bad as people are thinking and I think there is a lot of over simplification being used. I am not saying we are in a great financial position but I don't think we are in 'car boot sale' territory.
-
Is everybody a chartered accountant all of a sudden?
-
More than one poster on here is an accountant, yes.
-
A bit more invention perhaps - Villa Park becoming the "Recon Arena" or "Recon Villa Park" for £30m a season for 5 years? Has Dr Tony got the financial clout??
In my opinion we have been preparing for this as soon as we couldn't secure a top 2 place. With the announcement of the training ground sponsorship etc.
If we can add £30m to the coffers to rename the ground then we should do it. Everyone will still call it Villa park anyway.
-
One of the less obvious reasons I wanted us to go up was to see the colour of Dr T's money. I do believe he's genuine and has the financial clout, but there is that nagging suspicion he is hiding behind the FFP thing. Had we gone up there would have been no excuse and we could have seen what he was all about in his plan to get us to Eurpoean domination.
I'm still confused as to how some teams seem to be able to swerve it better than others - surely Wolves were outspending their turnover - and yet we always seem to have to fall in line.
Wolves made a profit in 2 of the 3 previous seasons. A big loss last season, and you assume they'll have a loss for this one, so would probably have been fecked if they hadn't gone up.
-
Are we the only club that seems bothered about FFP? If 12 clubs have failed it this season and we’re yet to see any fines, transfer embargo’s or points deductions it doesn’t seem like the league are taking it that seriously!?
-
Are we the only club that seems bothered about FFP? If 12 clubs have failed it this season and we’re yet to see any fines, transfer embargo’s or points deductions it doesn’t seem like the league are taking it that seriously!?
I don't know if we're the only club taking it seriously, but we do seem to be the only one that's been worried about it ever since it was introduced.
-
Are we the only club that seems bothered about FFP? If 12 clubs have failed it this season and we’re yet to see any fines, transfer embargo’s or points deductions it doesn’t seem like the league are taking it that seriously!?
I don't know if we're the only club taking it seriously, but we do seem to be the only one that's been worried about it ever since it was introduced.
Well we’re the biggest club to have been relegated and then not got back up, so the disparity in our income and outgoings is huge.
-
Are we the only club that seems bothered about FFP? If 12 clubs have failed it this season and we’re yet to see any fines, transfer embargo’s or points deductions it doesn’t seem like the league are taking it that seriously!?
If it wasn't for Wyness' clear frustration at the regulations and potential restrictions, I'd be suspecting it's all just a clever/convenient excuse for curtailing spending.
-
Is everybody a chartered accountant all of a sudden?
I am English teacher and I can tell you all that the utterance "We must sort our bloody finances out" is an expression of deontic modality.
-
A bit more invention perhaps - Villa Park becoming the "Recon Arena" or "Recon Villa Park" for £30m a season for 5 years? Has Dr Tony got the financial clout??
In my opinion we have been preparing for this as soon as we couldn't secure a top 2 place. With the announcement of the training ground sponsorship etc.
If we can add £30m to the coffers to rename the ground then we should do it. Everyone will still call it Villa park anyway.
Which is precisely why renaming Villa Park will have sod all effect on FFP.
-
A bit more invention perhaps - Villa Park becoming the "Recon Arena" or "Recon Villa Park" for £30m a season for 5 years? Has Dr Tony got the financial clout??
In my opinion we have been preparing for this as soon as we couldn't secure a top 2 place. With the announcement of the training ground sponsorship etc.
If we can add £30m to the coffers to rename the ground then we should do it. Everyone will still call it Villa park anyway.
Which is precisely why renaming Villa Park will have sod all effect on FFP.
I really don't know how true this is despite the number of times you (and others) have repeated it. It gets ruled by an independent panel who have to say whether the value given is reasonable but who really knows what is reasonable in this regard? "but people will still call it Villa Park" is only an argument if you're trying to generate external income, if recon are the sponsor then the 'return on investment' is largely irrelevant. If Xia argues that his vision for the club and the area is to use the Recon brand to implement smart citytech then he can cite a legitimate 'exposure' value to getting the branding around the stadium and use that to justify the costs. I really wouldn't be surprised if a figure around £5-6m a year was agreed as acceptable, especially given we have the sheer number of TV games we were selected for also working in our favour.
-
A bit more invention perhaps - Villa Park becoming the "Recon Arena" or "Recon Villa Park" for £30m a season for 5 years? Has Dr Tony got the financial clout??
In my opinion we have been preparing for this as soon as we couldn't secure a top 2 place. With the announcement of the training ground sponsorship etc.
If we can add £30m to the coffers to rename the ground then we should do it. Everyone will still call it Villa park anyway.
Which is precisely why renaming Villa Park will have sod all effect on FFP.
I really don't know how true this is despite the number of times you (and others) have repeated it. It gets ruled by an independent panel who have to say whether the value given is reasonable but who really knows what is reasonable in this regard? "but people will still call it Villa Park" is only an argument if you're trying to generate external income, if recon are the sponsor then the 'return on investment' is largely irrelevant. If Xia argues that his vision for the club and the area is to use the Recon brand to implement smart citytech then he can cite a legitimate 'exposure' value to getting the branding around the stadium and use that to justify the costs. I really wouldn't be surprised if a figure around £5-6m a year was agreed as acceptable, especially given we have the sheer number of TV games we were selected for also working in our favour.
Naming rights aren't worth much though if no-one uses the name.
It's not a coincidence that the only stadia to sell naming rights in the UK are those which were purpose built - Emirates, Etihad, Bet365, Macron, etc, whilst at the same time, the two most famous stadia in the country, Old Trafford and Anfield, haven't sold naming rights. It's simply the case that where a stadium is established no-one's going to pay much to rename it because everyone will keep using the old name.
The other obvious example was when Newcastle tried to rename St James Park, and after realising no-one would pay for it, they gave up.
-
Naming rights aren't worth much though if no-one uses the name.
It's not a coincidence that the only stadia to sell naming rights in the UK are those which were purpose built - Emirates, Etihad, Bet365, Macron, etc, whilst at the same time, the two most famous stadia in the country, Old Trafford and Anfield, haven't sold naming rights. It's simply the case that where a stadium is established no-one's going to pay much to rename it because everyone will keep using the old name.
The other obvious example was when Newcastle tried to rename St James Park, and after realising no-one would pay for it, they gave up.
This bit show that you didn't really read what I wrote so I'll repeat it, we're not looking to sell naming rights to anyone, we're looking at sponsoring ourselves through another company Xia owns so we don't need to show how they would get a return on investment, all we need to do is prove to a panel that the deal we're looking to put in place is fair. There are plenty of little ways to do that and all together I think you're looking at a decent sum, not enough to completely ignore FFP but this could well be the difference between selling Chester or not, for example.
-
Oh, as an aside, an independent valuation a few months back suggested the naming rights for Old Trafford and Anfield were worth £25m and £11m respectively, which suggests that your assertion that no one is going to pay much for them is probably wrong. Those 2 haven't gone down that route because they haven't needed the money and didn't think it would play well with the fans, not because there wasn't any value.
-
Naming rights aren't worth much though if no-one uses the name.
It's not a coincidence that the only stadia to sell naming rights in the UK are those which were purpose built - Emirates, Etihad, Bet365, Macron, etc, whilst at the same time, the two most famous stadia in the country, Old Trafford and Anfield, haven't sold naming rights. It's simply the case that where a stadium is established no-one's going to pay much to rename it because everyone will keep using the old name.
The other obvious example was when Newcastle tried to rename St James Park, and after realising no-one would pay for it, they gave up.
This bit show that you didn't really read what I wrote so I'll repeat it, we're not looking to sell naming rights to anyone, we're looking at sponsoring ourselves through another company Xia owns so we don't need to show how they would get a return on investment, all we need to do is prove to a panel that the deal we're looking to put in place is fair. There are plenty of little ways to do that and all together I think you're looking at a decent sum, not enough to completely ignore FFP but this could well be the difference between selling Chester or not, for example.
Yet another example of why I really should stick to my rule of not reading or responding to your posts.
-
The other obvious example was when Newcastle tried to rename St James Park, and after realising no-one would pay for it, they gave up.
Which they did, and then sold the naming rights to Wonga as part of a commercial package, Wonga chose to change the name back to St James' Park, but still paid to do so.
-
Wonga Park might've just been a little bit too close to the bone.
-
Newcastle were going to rename their ground,Sports Direct Arena.It was the fans who stopped it.If Villa Park had been renamed 6 years ago,most of our fans would have been against it .Could be the reason why Old Trafford and Anfield.'s naming rights are not sold,plus they get so much money,another x million is not worth the hassle.
.It's not the usage by the average fan that is important but use in the media,the reason why sponsor names are on shirts.So it has a value and that's why the Oval is known as the Kia Oval,an example of a well established ground being renamed.
-
And it doesn't have to be commercially viable if the person sponsoring it is the same person that owns the club and is just using it as a way to pump a few million into the club.
-
Newcastle were going to rename their ground,Sports Direct Arena.It was the fans who stopped it.
It spent a year called that and then Wonga bought the commercial rights including stadium naming. They probably, wisely, decided that The Wonga Stadium would be a really shit name and reverted back to SJP, but they still paid for the naming rights.
-
Newcastle were going to rename their ground,Sports Direct Arena.It was the fans who stopped it.
It spent a year called that and then Wonga bought the commercial rights including stadium naming. They probably, wisely, decided that The Wonga Stadium would be a really shit name and reverted back to SJP, but they still paid for the naming rights.
I should have read your posts before posting.Even with my dysfunctional memory,to be able to remember Kia as the Oval's sponsor proves that naming rights can work.However,I was under the illusion that they made an orange drink.
-
Naming rights aren't worth much though if no-one uses the name.
It's not a coincidence that the only stadia to sell naming rights in the UK are those which were purpose built - Emirates, Etihad, Bet365, Macron, etc, whilst at the same time, the two most famous stadia in the country, Old Trafford and Anfield, haven't sold naming rights. It's simply the case that where a stadium is established no-one's going to pay much to rename it because everyone will keep using the old name.
The other obvious example was when Newcastle tried to rename St James Park, and after realising no-one would pay for it, they gave up.
This bit show that you didn't really read what I wrote so I'll repeat it, we're not looking to sell naming rights to anyone, we're looking at sponsoring ourselves through another company Xia owns so we don't need to show how they would get a return on investment, all we need to do is prove to a panel that the deal we're looking to put in place is fair. There are plenty of little ways to do that and all together I think you're looking at a decent sum, not enough to completely ignore FFP but this could well be the difference between selling Chester or not, for example.
Yet another example of why I really should stick to my rule of not reading or responding to your posts.
Sigh, fine, don't read or reply but please stop repeating that the stadium rights are worthless when you have no idea if it's true or not.
-
Posting here as well, no good news from Tony:
I know that all the Villa fans experienced a very frustrating and disappointing Play-Off Final last Saturday. After seeing many Villa supporters on Twitter hoping that I can publish a statement as soon as possible, I feel like it would be best for me to write the following words when I am relatively calm.
I care as much about this club as anyone. Even though I am back in Beijing, I still can't recover from our game at Wembley. The emotion needs time to heal. However, I know that all our management staff, coaches, players and myself need to get back on our feet and prepare to fight again. Like everyone else, I'm delighted to see that under Steve’s management this season, we demonstrated character and unity. We fought like a team. Indeed, the loss is a pity, but we know how much effort and hard work our coaching staff and players put in this season. I want to thank Steve from the bottom of my heart, particularly for his remarkable level of professional focus despite losing his parents this year. With that, I would like to say thank you to Steve and his coaching staff once again for leading the team forward wholeheartedly throughout the season.
We are all aware that we will face severe FFP challenges next season. I am an Aston Villa fan. But I am also a businessman. Under the current circumstances, I think the club needs to rethink not only the past two years but also the past ten years. Villa needs to be a sustainable football club. People join. People leave. That is the cycle of football. But the football club always remains through it all. This is the ultimate reality that cannot be changed, but I can assure you that everyone behind the scenes is working tirelessly towards achieving our ultimate goal.
We have been heavily investing for the past two seasons. However, the loss on Saturday means that we need to change a lot of things. No one wanted to see the club have to go through this, but I believe that only changes can help the club to progress towards the positive direction and this requires the joint efforts of everyone associated with this great football club. No matter what the changes will be, I sincerely hope that everyone can unite and overcome the challenges together. Our goal has not changed and as long as we believe, regardless of how tough the process will be, I am sure we will succeed in the end.
Thank you very much once again for all your support.
Chairman
Dr Tony Xia
-
And it doesn't have to be commercially viable if the person sponsoring it is the same person that owns the club and is just using it as a way to pump a few million into the club.
It does. FFP includes anti-abuse rules which say that transactions between connected parties (which Recon clearly is to the Villa) need to be at market value or they're removed from the calculation.
-
Nothing we didn't already know.
-
The biggest thing I take from the statement is that Bruce will be off.
-
The biggest thing I take from the statement is that Bruce will be off.
I thought the opposite? Could be a goodbye perhaps
-
Yeah, I didn't think it read like Bruce was going anywhere. The biggest hint I took from that is that any outgoing is fair game.
-
Yeah, I didn't think it read like Bruce was going anywhere. The biggest hint I took from that is that any outgoing is fair game.
This. The neg ferret in me read it as goodbye Jack 😔
-
I appreciate how he got back to us all so quickly.
It's clear players will be sold under this message
I also like how he is as transparent as he can be. Very honourable and decent.
Fair play. We all feeling the hurt.
-
I read it once and it meant that Bruce was staying. After second reading it sounds like curtains for Steve.
Fuck knows!
-
At least no talk of Shummanites - although its about as clear.
-
And it doesn't have to be commercially viable if the person sponsoring it is the same person that owns the club and is just using it as a way to pump a few million into the club.
It does. FFP includes anti-abuse rules which say that transactions between connected parties (which Recon clearly is to the Villa) need to be at market value or they're removed from the calculation.
But as you say, there aren't really many comparisons they can use to find the market value.
How many clubs are looking at a regen project for the entire area and have a connected party that would be used to do the work and needs the exposure?
How many grounds are going to be used as party of a major international sporting competition in a few years time which would add further exposure?
How many existing grounds have been sponsored and at what value? Newcastle has been mentioned, are there many others? From what I can find Wonga agreed around £6m a year as shirt and stadium sponsor 6 years ago. With changes in circumstance and all the extra money in the game I really don't see those, along with the training ground, being ignored if we agreed to a figure about double that, or a touch higher.
-
We are all aware that we will face severe FFP challenges next season. I am an Aston Villa fan. But I am also a businessman. Under the current circumstances, I think the club needs to rethink not only the past two years but also the past ten years. Villa needs to be a sustainable football club. People join. People leave
So
- no pumping in of money
- bye bye Jack
-
If we have to find £40 million in savings essentially this summer....
£3 million - Terry leaving
£2 million - Gabby leaving
£3 million - Gollini leaving
£2 million - Gil leaving
£2 million - Snodgrass leaving
£2 million - Elphick to Reading
£6 million - McCormack (4 million fee plus the wages saved)
£1 million - Johnstone leaving
£2 million - Deleat leaving
£1 million - Samba leaving
£1 million - Grabban leaving
£3 million - Lansbury leaving
£1 million - Hutton leaving
Even with all of that we are only at around £30 million, would be seriously screwed as we would be a keeper short, have 1 left back and 1 centre half, need 2 wingers and a centre forward. Going to need an incredibly patient fan base and board for whoever has this task. Could easily end up where Sunderland are (they must even more fucked than we are!)
-
We bet the farm on red and it came out black.
-
So other than pulling up the drawbridge for the elite few, all FFP really does is fuck over any clubs with the slightest bit of ambition.
I fucking hate modern football.
-
So other than pulling up the drawbridge for the elite few, all FFP really does is fuck over any clubs with the slightest bit of ambition.
I fucking hate modern football.
Essentially it has protected the top few clubs at the time it was introduced. The fact we invested it poorly under RDM and Bruce on the parachute (£30 million on McCormack, Tsishbola, Hogan, Lansbury plus their wages for what, 15 games this season) is partly what has killed us though.
-
Gollini jas just been sold for 3.5mill - so thats half a mill more + any part wages we were propping up.
Remember most sales put the wages as well.as the transfer fee in the pot.
If Barney has a decent world cup he could draw a good fee and he's not on your list.
If we can keep a reasonable core, we have some decent youths, & we can look at some cheaper loans.
Blackpool got out of this division straight through from league one - it doesn't take loads of money. Its takes organisation and team spirit. Lets see if we can get those
-
I stand by my assessment that since (fucking) Cardiff got out of this division and didn't even have to do it via the play-offs, anything is possible.
If we build properly for the long term, it will be time and patience we need, not money.
Mind you, money probably helps a lot.
Fuck. Time to start drinking.
-
And it doesn't have to be commercially viable if the person sponsoring it is the same person that owns the club and is just using it as a way to pump a few million into the club.
It does. FFP includes anti-abuse rules which say that transactions between connected parties (which Recon clearly is to the Villa) need to be at market value or they're removed from the calculation.
You miss the point again. Say for arguments sake the experts consider its correct market value is £5m a year to sponsor a stadium like VP, many companies won't bother as they'd consider it poor value for money as everyone will still call it Villa Park, and the only reason they'd want to spend that money is for advertising. If I want to spend £5m a year purely as a way to spend money on the club to help with FFP, I wouldn't care if anyone calls it The PWS Stadium or they all carry on calling it Villa Park as I didn't invest the money for the sponsorship value.
-
If we have to find £40 million in savings essentially this summer....
£3 million - Terry leaving
£2 million - Gabby leaving
£3 million - Gollini leaving
£2 million - Gil leaving
£2 million - Snodgrass leaving
£2 million - Elphick to Reading
£6 million - McCormack (4 million fee plus the wages saved)
£1 million - Johnstone leaving
£2 million - Deleat leaving
£1 million - Samba leaving
£1 million - Grabban leaving
£3 million - Lansbury leaving
£1 million - Hutton leaving
Even with all of that we are only at around £30 million, would be seriously screwed as we would be a keeper short, have 1 left back and 1 centre half, need 2 wingers and a centre forward. Going to need an incredibly patient fan base and board for whoever has this task. Could easily end up where Sunderland are (they must even more fucked than we are!)
£15m for Grealish when he goes to Huddersfield or Watford or wherever - We'll have £5m to buy a squad and pay wages. Job done.
-
No we all know what the situation is, from the horses mouth. I hope to fuck people don't start bleating next season if we're nowhere near the play offs
This is going to be a long haul to get back to the PL now, doing it on a budget and with a lot of homegrowns
Time to put on your big boy pants and buckle in for the ride
-
The biggest thing I take from the statement is that Bruce will be off.
Agreed.
-
And it doesn't have to be commercially viable if the person sponsoring it is the same person that owns the club and is just using it as a way to pump a few million into the club.
It does. FFP includes anti-abuse rules which say that transactions between connected parties (which Recon clearly is to the Villa) need to be at market value or they're removed from the calculation.
You miss the point again. Say for arguments sake the experts consider its correct market value is £5m a year to sponsor a stadium like VP, many companies won't bother as they'd consider it poor value for money as everyone will still call it Villa Park, and the only reason they'd want to spend that money is for advertising. If I want to spend £5m a year purely as a way to spend money on the club to help with FFP, I wouldn't care if anyone calls it The PWS Stadium or they all carry on calling it Villa Park as I didn't invest the money for the sponsorship value.
I haven't missed the point, you're arguing the wrong point.
FFP rules require transactions with related parties to be on a commercial basis. Like you say yourself, the reason you'd want to sponsor a stadium is for marketing purposes but if no one will call it by the new name, there's no value there. No "expert" is going to say something's market value is £5m if no-one would pay it. If, again as you say, you're really just sticking money in to get around FFP then there's clearly no commercial basis for that.
The test is essentially "What would an independent 3rd party pay for this?" so what Tone wants to put in in return for "naming rights" is irrelevant.
-
A subjective test like that is open for discretion. If we bring evidence to the table and we have things in our favour given the explosion of football in emerging markets and our ever pressence on the box- we are better placed than most in this league. Nobody would pay £10 million a year to sponsor your bibs and training ground surely? But they do. Nobody would be an official noodle sponsor? But there are. This is a very peculiar market.
Far better to make use of the opaque nature of Chinese business and circumvent the rules that way. Good luck picking the bones out of that EFL legal team.
Actually a land sale would work. RECON want to change Aston in a similar way that N17 is likely to and around Arsenal and Wembley has. Flog the land and lease it back for peppercorn rent given we're the flagship anchor tenant.
-
I could be the shirt sponsor, no one to do with FFP would care why i'm sponsoring the shirt and the players have "PWS" on their shirts, as long as i'm paying the going rate and not a billion a year. The same applies to the stadium, or anything to do with the club that they want to offer for sponsorship.
I specifically said if everyone, including FFP, agreed the market value naming rights to VP was worth £5m a year, it could be £3m, £1m, (the value is totally irrelevant to the point) I could pay it. As could Tony. Or anyone else. It is an easy way for me or Tony, or you, to put money into the club if so inclined, and of course have the cash to do so.
Stadium naming rights have a value, the only things debatable are what that value is, and then whether Tony can, or wants to, pay it.
-
If we have to find £40 million in savings essentially this summer....
£3 million - Terry leaving
£2 million - Gabby leaving
£3 million - Gollini leaving
£2 million - Gil leaving
£2 million - Snodgrass leaving
£2 million - Elphick to Reading
£6 million - McCormack (4 million fee plus the wages saved)
£1 million - Johnstone leaving
£2 million - Deleat leaving
£1 million - Samba leaving
£1 million - Grabban leaving
£3 million - Lansbury leaving
£1 million - Hutton leaving
Even with all of that we are only at around £30 million, would be seriously screwed as we would be a keeper short, have 1 left back and 1 centre half, need 2 wingers and a centre forward. Going to need an incredibly patient fan base and board for whoever has this task. Could easily end up where Sunderland are (they must even more fucked than we are!)
£15m for Grealish when he goes to Huddersfield or Watford or wherever - We'll have £5m to buy a squad and pay wages. Job done.
.
These numbers are a significant over estimate. They take no account of amortisation which is expaliend in various places. 7500 to Holte today published the best explanation
-
Stadium naming rights have a value, the only things debatable are what that value is, and then whether Tony can, or wants to, pay it.
Totally agree. My point has always been though that the reason you almost never see already existing grounds sell naming rights is because that value is so small it's just not worth it. So even if Tone decided he'd pay £500m in order to call Villa Park the "Recon Superdome" for FFP purposes it'd get completely ignored because it's nothing like fair market value.
To try to put a bit more science to something that's massively subjective (as Ads says), a consultancy produced a report on "market values" of naming rights for every club in the Premier League. Traditionally we're considered fairly similar to Everton - we've had similar levels of on-field success, we've both got traditional old grounds and we've probably got similar global fanbases. The only real difference at the moment is that they're in the Prem with the massive global exposure that brings vs the Championship. This report set the market value of naming rights to Goodison as £2.8m a year. What would that be worth in the Championship? Our overseas correspondents talk about the challenges of watching Championship games live on TV around the world whereas pretty much every Prem game is broadcast live.
I just can't see that there's any merit whatsoever in renaming Villa Park. FFP-fudge or not. Bulldose it and rebuild Spurs-style and it'd be a whole different story but I don't want to be giving Tone ideas like that!!!
-
So other than pulling up the drawbridge for the elite few, all FFP really does is fuck over any clubs with the slightest bit of ambition.
I fucking hate modern football.
You can still show ambition. We showed ambition last two years and also the first 3 years under Lerner.
With ambition however you have to deliver. Likes of Chelsea and Man. City have realised it by winning trophies and establishing themselves in the champions league. We couldn't.
Wolves got up so will have no issues with FFP now. We didn't and will face the consquences of that along with many other clubs.
In the last 20 years we've just become a close but no cigar club.
-
The problem with FFP now is that it hasn't kept up with the growing financial gap between Championship and PL.
-
Approx £5m saved on Gollini and Terry in the space of a day. At this rate we'll be millionaires by the start of the new season, Rodney. FTF!*
*TF being FFP
-
It seems we went half measures. Either you cut your cloth accordingly when relegated or you say fuck it and spend big to get out. It seems we did neither. If FFP was going to wreck us if we weren't promoted then maybe there was a case for going all in last summer and putting a squad together that would piss the division rather than one that would be competitive.
-
It seems we went half measures. Either you cut your cloth accordingly when relegated or you say fuck it and spend big to get out. It seems we did neither. If FFP was going to wreck us if we weren't promoted then maybe there was a case for going all in last summer and putting a squad together that would piss the division rather than one that would be competitive.
We did spend big in that first season. It’s just that we’ve had to spend again to replace most of those we bought back then.
-
But were they of the quality required to piss the league? IF FFP was always going to screw us then you make sure you're out of the division in two seasons rather than being mediocre for one then scraping a squad of loans together.
-
But were they of the quality required to piss the league? IF FFP was always going to screw us then you make sure you're out of the division in two seasons rather than being mediocre for one then scraping a squad of loans together.
They were bought as they all had decent pedigree in the division, but it soon transpired that they had been bought with little idea of how to utilise them properly and some just saw us as their golden ticket to easy street (again!!). The amount of money we wasted in that first season is inexplicable really.
-
It seems we went half measures. Either you cut your cloth accordingly when relegated or you say fuck it and spend big to get out. It seems we did neither. If FFP was going to wreck us if we weren't promoted then maybe there was a case for going all in last summer and putting a squad together that would piss the division rather than one that would be competitive.
The big mistake was hiring a manager who was incapable of "pissing" the division.
-
The biggest thing I take from the statement is that Bruce will be off.
Agreed.
Doesn’t that cost us rather than save money?
-
The biggest thing I take from the statement is that Bruce will be off.
Agreed.
Doesn’t that cost us rather than save money?
I thought Bruce was on a rolling contract, which is a concept I admit to not understanding but I assume it means that AVFC do not have to pay a lump some in compensation?
-
Perhaps Bruce needs to read the small print in his rolling contract. I imagine that terms and conditions are very much included!
-
The biggest thing I take from the statement is that Bruce will be off.
Agreed.
Doesn’t that cost us rather than save money?
I thought Bruce was on a rolling contract, which is a concept I admit to not understanding but I assume it means that AVFC do not have to pay a lump some in compensation?
If we could bin him at any point without compensation he basically doesn't have a contract.
A rolling contact normally means that at any point in time either party have to give a certain amount of notice, but there's no fixed end point until notice is given. Normal contacts of employment that most of us will be working under are effectively rolling contracts.
-
It seems we went half measures. Either you cut your cloth accordingly when relegated or you say fuck it and spend big to get out. It seems we did neither. If FFP was going to wreck us if we weren't promoted then maybe there was a case for going all in last summer and putting a squad together that would piss the division rather than one that would be competitive.
Half measures!?!!
Up until we went down we'd only ever paid double digits for a striker once. We then did it three times in 6 months. Three times! And we play one up front
We were the most expensive squad ever assembled in the championship
We're going to need a proper sense of reality for what's coming. In hindsight, if wed decided several years ago to become sustainable even if it meant taking a hit, we'd be in a better position now
The whole club needs to start operating in the real world, fans included
-
The biggest thing I take from the statement is that Bruce will be off.
Agreed.
Doesn’t that cost us rather than save money?
I thought Bruce was on a rolling contract, which is a concept I admit to not understanding but I assume it means that AVFC do not have to pay a lump some in compensation?
Personally i would be very surprised if we hired a manager to achieve promotion and didn't add a clause allowing us to fuck him off for nothing if he failed to deliver, that would be Lerner levels of incompetence.
-
The sanctions for breaching FFP seem to vary considerably, and it's not fully clear what would happen in that event.
Whilst Man City got a hefty fine, that was chicken feed to the owners and they just carry on in their own sweet way as do the other 'big' clubs. Bournemouth received a fine of £7m which was easy to pay from the TV coffers. Fulham and Forest had temporary transfer embargoes a couple of years back, but could still sign loan players.
QPR got a big fine, but they don't seem to be doing any worse measured against than their average position over the years.
-
They've toughened it up considerably now
-
Sanctions above embargo and the scaled fine system are discretionary. The more clubs who fall foul of it the better.
The Noses are clearly wanking themselves into a frenzy without realizing they fell of a cliff, so lets see what happens to them and others like Derby and Wednesday who are in dire risk of falling foul of FFP first.
-
Am I correct in saying that we are in financial trouble with FFP because of our final year in the PL with Lerner.
-
Am I correct in saying that we are in financial trouble with FFP because of our final year in the PL with Lerner.
No. Xia buying the club starts the clock. We're entitled to lose £39 million and he's entitled to inject £8 million in equity.
Given the TV deal, these sums are ridiculously low.
-
We bet the farm on red and it came out black.
Walking out of Wembley on Saturday, I had that sick feeling that gamblers must experience when they realise they’ve blown everything.
Also, and this is purely based on gut instinct, I don’t trust Xia to get us out of this shit. Depressing times.
-
Sanctions above embargo and the scaled fine system are discretionary. The more clubs who fall foul of it the better.
The Noses are clearly wanking themselves into a frenzy without realizing they fell of a cliff, so lets see what happens to them and others like Derby and Wednesday who are in dire risk of falling foul of FFP first.
I read that there is around 11/12 clubs all with issues in the league Birmingham and QPR are 2 I know of
The rules have been toughened up after Bournmouth and Leicester just cheated , got promoted and paid a small fine now you can expect transfer embargo's and points deductions
-
Am I correct in saying that we are in financial trouble with FFP because of our final year in the PL with Lerner.
No. Xia buying the club starts the clock. We're entitled to lose £39 million and he's entitled to inject £8 million in equity.
Given the TV deal, these sums are ridiculously low.
So if he sold the club would it be reset again ..
-
Am I correct in saying that we are in financial trouble with FFP because of our final year in the PL with Lerner.
No. Xia buying the club starts the clock. We're entitled to lose £39 million and he's entitled to inject £8 million in equity.
You sure about this ?
I've always been told it's based on three year cycles and our plight is mainly down to that last season in the PL where we had some huge losses
-
New purchases starts the clock of the cycle.
-
Then Dr Xia, simply hand the club to me
-
New purchases starts the clock of the cycle.
I'm not sure this is right.
We're fine on FFP for the season just ended, which is based on 2 years of Tone and Randy's last year. The issue comes next year, which just happens to coincide with three years since Tone took over. What's more relevant is that it coincides with us getting relegated from the Prem with largely Championship income and a Premier League cost base.
-
New purchases starts the clock of the cycle.
Pretty sure it doesn't.
-
Perhaps I am confusing it with an ability to inject £8 million in equity? So while everybody can lose £39 million over three years, in reality, we can inject £24 million across 3 years at the same time.
-
Am I correct in saying that we are in financial trouble with FFP because of our final year in the PL with Lerner.
No. Xia buying the club starts the clock. We're entitled to lose £39 million and he's entitled to inject £8 million in equity.
You sure about this ?
I've always been told it's based on three year cycles and our plight is mainly down to that last season in the PL where we had some huge losses
It is, but the final year with Lerner drops off the record after today. It used to be the previous 3 seasons but they changed it to the previous 2 and the projections for the current one.
-
I looked back from the AGM meeting in March and Wyness comments on FFP the indication was it would be tight but we should be ok , but more importantly was a meeting due to challenge the losses rules at the loss's were set when the Parachute payments were less ..no word of what happened at said meeting and if the rules where changed , only needed 1 more club to vote in favour apparently
-
I looked back from the AGM meeting in March and Wyness comments on FFP the indication was it would be tight but we should be ok , but more importantly was a meeting due to challenge the losses rules at the loss's were set when the Parachute payments were less ..no word of what happened at said meeting and if the rules where changed , only needed 1 more club to vote in favour apparently
The more I think about it, and I really didn't want to be believing this, but I think it's a good excuse for them to reign the money in, so the FFP agenda suits them.
-
I looked back from the AGM meeting in March and Wyness comments on FFP the indication was it would be tight but we should be ok , but more importantly was a meeting due to challenge the losses rules at the loss's were set when the Parachute payments were less ..no word of what happened at said meeting and if the rules where changed , only needed 1 more club to vote in favour apparently
The more I think about it, and I really didn't want to be believing this, but I think it's a good excuse for them to reign the money in, so the FFP agenda suits them.
Given the poor value for money we have gotten recently its not that bad a thing !!
The other thing from the AGM is KW belives there are 12-14 breaches of it possibly. The 3 relegated sides should be ok ..but I think Us .Norwich ,QPR, Birmingham, Bolton are some of sides in trouble
-
Sounds like Derby as well from the Lampard interview.
-
I looked back from the AGM meeting in March and Wyness comments on FFP the indication was it would be tight but we should be ok , but more importantly was a meeting due to challenge the losses rules at the loss's were set when the Parachute payments were less ..no word of what happened at said meeting and if the rules where changed , only needed 1 more club to vote in favour apparently
The more I think about it, and I really didn't want to be believing this, but I think it's a good excuse for them to reign the money in, so the FFP agenda suits them.
Given the poor value for money we have gotten recently its not that bad a thing !!
The other thing from the AGM is KW belives there are 12-14 breaches of it possibly. The 3 relegated sides should be ok ..but I think Us .Norwich ,QPR, Birmingham, Bolton are some of sides in trouble
We’re not. We would be next summer but not now
-
The irony is that clubs that might have the financial ability to compete through other resources or to get themselves out of trouble can't do that because of these rules. In effect it is making them less competitive and their revenue streams continue to shrink. The exact of opposite of what it was meant to do.
-
Sounds like restraint of trade to me.
-
I looked back from the AGM meeting in March and Wyness comments on FFP the indication was it would be tight but we should be ok , but more importantly was a meeting due to challenge the losses rules at the loss's were set when the Parachute payments were less ..no word of what happened at said meeting and if the rules where changed , only needed 1 more club to vote in favour apparently
The more I think about it, and I really didn't want to be believing this, but I think it's a good excuse for them to reign the money in, so the FFP agenda suits them.
Given the poor value for money we have gotten recently its not that bad a thing !!
The other thing from the AGM is KW belives there are 12-14 breaches of it possibly. The 3 relegated sides should be ok ..but I think Us .Norwich ,QPR, Birmingham, Bolton are some of sides in trouble
I keep seeing this repeated, but how would he know?
As they have not been pulled up which suggests the Financials so far are not in breach, how will it help us? and are they in a worse or better position than us?.
Looks like more straw grabbing.
-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-5792685/Powered-spite-vultures-tearing-Aston-Villas-carcass.html
Powered by spite, vultures are tearing at Aston Villa's carcass
If Villa have to give up everything that is good about the club, if they have to surrender players, prospects and facilities, if they have to embrace the mediocre, join a race to the bottom, that is fine. The Football League are only too willing to embrace mundanity. It's ambition that terrifies them.
Item number one: Jack Grealish. A tiny flicker of hope for Villa fans these last two seasons that they might have a young player at last emerging as a significant performer. Grealish has had his disciplinary issues but this season, in particular, he appears to have grown up and grown comfortable with his ability, accepting responsibility as a key member of the team.
Jordan Amavi, Idrissa Gueye, Jordan Ayew, Rudy Gestede, Jordan Veretout and Adama Traore cost a combined total of £47.5million. Not one was sold on beneficially after relegation.
That is what demotion does. It makes a player damaged goods and ruins his asking price.
The seller begins with grandiose claims — Stoke want £30m for goalkeeper Jack Butland, it is reported — but then reality sets in and they take what the market dictates.
Relegation in 2016 destroyed Villa's finances. Their most recently reported figures confirm that. A loss of £29.6m was posted in the relegation season.
Then turnover dropped by £35.6m in 2016-17 as all commercial revenues fell, including £2.9m in gate receipts, £17m in broadcast rights, £9.1m in sponsorship and £6.4m in merchandise, royalties and corporate entertainment. Villa shed 122 full-time staff and 539 personnel in total.
-
That’s from Martin Samuels piece today isn’t it?
-
Full article, Martin Samuels writing for the Daily Mail.
Aston Villa did not end up in the Championship because they were getting it right. The same as any Premier League team, really. Poor recruitment, poor managerial choices, poor executive decisions; there are many reasons for relegation and few signpost administrative excellence.
Incompetence: that is the common denominator. That is why fortunes are often spent and wasted scrambling to survive. Queens Park Rangers had one final, costly splurge before disappearing below the surface. Sunderland bought 80 players during Ellis Short's time as chairman and could sell only six of them for a profit.
Aston Villa are no different. In the season they went down, they sold Christian Benteke and Fabian Delph for good money — which might explain it — but frittered away those proceeds on players who disappointed or were powerless to arrest the decline.
Jordan Amavi, Idrissa Gueye, Jordan Ayew, Rudy Gestede, Jordan Veretout and Adama Traore cost a combined total of £47.5million. Not one was sold on beneficially after relegation.
That is what demotion does. It makes a player damaged goods and ruins his asking price.
The seller begins with grandiose claims — Stoke want £30m for goalkeeper Jack Butland, it is reported — but then reality sets in and they take what the market dictates.
Relegation in 2016 destroyed Villa's finances. Their most recently reported figures confirm that. A loss of £29.6m was posted in the relegation season.
Then turnover dropped by £35.6m in 2016-17 as all commercial revenues fell, including £2.9m in gate receipts, £17m in broadcast rights, £9.1m in sponsorship and £6.4m in merchandise, royalties and corporate entertainment. Villa shed 122 full-time staff and 539 personnel in total.
Despite the acquisition of a stellar name in John Terry, the last two Championship years have been austere. Finishing 13th in the first season inspired the determination to recruit a player of Terry's stature and experience but, in reality, times are hard. Steve Bruce, the manager, spent only £2.5m last summer, while raising £18m in player sales.
Villa missed out on promotion to the Premier League in the play-off final against Fulham and now the vultures are descending. For there is nothing the Football League enjoys more than tearing through the carcass of a Premier League club that has stuffed up.
Villa still have an estimated £40m hole in their finances, left over from trying to compete in an elite division, and the Football League will not rest until it is plugged.
If Villa have to give up everything that is good about the club, if they have to surrender players, prospects and facilities, if they have to embrace the mediocre, join a race to the bottom, that is fine. The Football League are only too willing to embrace mundanity. It's ambition that terrifies them.
Item number one: Jack Grealish. A tiny flicker of hope for Villa fans these last two seasons that they might have a young player at last emerging as a significant performer. Grealish has had his disciplinary issues but this season, in particular, he appears to have grown up and grown comfortable with his ability, accepting responsibility as a key member of the team.
He is a Villa supporter, Solihull-born, and has been around the club since he was six. At the age of 16 he was named on the bench for a Premier League match against Chelsea and now he has made more than 100 appearances.
There hasn't been much for Villa fans to get excited about of late, but Grealish is the best of it. Naturally, he has to be sold.
So, what is the purpose of that? What is the purpose of a rulebook that punishes a club for its past mistakes, that strips away the best of it, the promise of it just at the time when it could most do with support?
There is even talk of Villa having to sell their Recon Training Complex, formerly known as Bodymoor Heath, one of the most advanced facilities of its kind in the Championship. This is where the next generation of Villa stars learn their trade.
The League are not making Villa economically viable. They are forcing them to cash in on their only assets. If Villa were becoming streamlined by shedding waste, that would be different but this is a yard sale of the family silver.
How does it benefit Villa to lose Grealish and the facility that helped produce him. How is that beneficial or healthy?
From the going to the already gone: Terry, the man Grealish credits with encouraging his new professionalism and a player Bruce says has been inspirational in his influence, was not even offered a new contract. Villa cannot afford a second season of that positivity, so he has already said farewell.
Other loan players, such as Robert Snodgrass, a Scotland international, are expected to follow.
Quality is in short supply where Villa are heading. James Chester is another likely to be sold. Villa took him from West Brom in 2016 for around £8m and would have expected to turn a profit, but can they now, in the circumstances?
As this is a very public fire sale, clubs will try to force the price down — particularly with the transfer window closing earlier than ever, another bright idea. Take it or leave it will be the option in the knowledge that leaving could result in drastic FFP fines, and further ruination.
The old cliche is that Financial Fair Play prevents another crash like the ones at Portsmouth or Leeds, but Villa were not about to go skint. Owner Tony Xia has not been able to turn them back into a Premier League club but the sustainable future that he spoke of this week did not have to be reached in a state of panic.
Villa have suffered losses and setbacks, but the signs are Xia was beginning to bring that under control. To then have to lose his best players, maybe a good manager and a prime club facility to avoid further unjust financial punishment is a savage penalty in itself.
As ever, FFP causes measures to be undertaken in a mood of haste or anxiety. Wolves bet the farm on winning promotion this season, knowing if they failed the Football League would be after them. Villa fell short, so now it is their turn.
Far from achieving financial security, does anyone seriously believe Villa will be better off for losing their best players, including one — Grealish — who is the greatest beacon of hope?
In its current form, the Football League's financial rules are not fair but spiteful and potentially devastating.
Just by being within the grasp of the League's executives, haven't Villa been punished enough?
-
It really is looking exceptionally grim.
-
Selling BMH? Only to HS2.
-
Samual is spot on abd not for first time on FFP ,he has been critical of it in the past
-
Whilst it may have been well intentioned, it's a pile of shit in reality.
-
Genuinely surprised no club has managed to legally challenge FFP. It’s a restriction of trade bottom line. How can an owner be restricted to how much he invests in his business!?
Won’t be long till someone wins a legal case
-
Seems to me that the only course of action is to just sod FFP and then challenge any punishments later in the courts. It's not worth risking the future success of the club on rules thay were not thought through.
It seems like the article says, that the EFL want to punish clubs for trying to show aspiration. Like in the Simpsons when Homer quits work and then has to come crawling for his old job back - he has to sit and stare at a sign every day thay reads: remember, you're here forever. That's the FFP motto.
By the way, I read the EFL rules and could only find transfer embargoes in the punishments and nothing about points deductions. Are we sure points deductions are on the table?
Either which way, we should just carry on as if FFP doesn't exist, buy/keep the players we want, dump the ones we don't, but aim to finish in the top 2 whatever it takes. And we should pay lip service to FFP and make it look like we're trying, at least from the outside, and not openly flaunt it. I highly doubt they'd deny us promotion.
-
Yes, the rules were changed to include points deductions and even being denied promotion. Since the rule change though no one has failed FFP in the football league.
-
Yes, the rules were changed to include points deductions and even being denied promotion. Since the rule change though no one has failed FFP in the football league.
Even this year?
-
Not even this year. Yet.
-
That's the problem. With points deductions etc we are screwed if we fail it, and screw ourselves to meet it. Welcome to "fair" play.
-
Here is my post about the rule change
http://www.financialfairplay.co.uk/financial-fair-play-explained.php
Relevant bits regarding punishments
Crucially, this harmonisation of the rules comes with the blessing of the Premier League - so we shouldn’t see any repeat of the stand-offs that arose (and are still ongoing) with QPR and Leicester. Previously, the Premier League bosses refused to help the Football League collect the ‘Fair Play Tax’ fines for clubs that overspent but won promotion – this lack of support significantly undermined the Football League and severely impacted on the effectiveness of the Football League punishments.
Any punishment for breach of the rules will be determined by an independent panel (the ‘Fair Play Panel’).
But what are the potential punishments? Previously the Football League has only been able to either; fine promoted clubs (a fine the Premier League didn’t help them collect), or impose a transfer embargo for historic overspending (which always like a stable-door/horse scenario). With this change, a wide range of punishments are now available. Nothing is off the table; the Football League are now able to impose a points deduction during the current season, or demote a club from an automatic promotion position into the play-offs (or out of the play-offs altogether). Transfer embargoes are also available (with the earliest one potentially applying during the Summer 2017 Transfer window.
-
Derby also have a problem , have cut staff and facing a 10 mil fine
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-5759041/Sky-Sports-plan-reduce-Thierry-Henrys-4m-year-pay-packet.html
-
There is talk that if we paid the fines we could overcome FFP and continue to spend. First of all I have also heard of possible point deductions and Villa being a big name in the Championship would definitely be under scrutiny.
Also the owner(s) of Aston Villa or should I say the custonians do they really have the funds
-
That's an excellent article.
-
New purchases starts the clock of the cycle.
I'm not sure this is right.
We're fine on FFP for the season just ended, which is based on 2 years of Tone and Randy's last year. The issue comes next year, which just happens to coincide with three years since Tone took over. What's more relevant is that it coincides with us getting relegated from the Prem with largely Championship income and a Premier League cost base.
There is a rule in UEFA FFP where a club facing FFP issues can apply for a licence to play in UEFA competitions where they'd usually have been denied one, where there's been a change of owner.
-
Here is my post about the rule change
http://www.financialfairplay.co.uk/financial-fair-play-explained.php
Relevant bits regarding punishments
Crucially, this harmonisation of the rules comes with the blessing of the Premier League - so we shouldn’t see any repeat of the stand-offs that arose (and are still ongoing) with QPR and Leicester. Previously, the Premier League bosses refused to help the Football League collect the ‘Fair Play Tax’ fines for clubs that overspent but won promotion – this lack of support significantly undermined the Football League and severely impacted on the effectiveness of the Football League punishments.
Any punishment for breach of the rules will be determined by an independent panel (the ‘Fair Play Panel’).
But what are the potential punishments? Previously the Football League has only been able to either; fine promoted clubs (a fine the Premier League didn’t help them collect), or impose a transfer embargo for historic overspending (which always like a stable-door/horse scenario). With this change, a wide range of punishments are now available. Nothing is off the table; the Football League are now able to impose a points deduction during the current season, or demote a club from an automatic promotion position into the play-offs (or out of the play-offs altogether). Transfer embargoes are also available (with the earliest one potentially applying during the Summer 2017 Transfer window.
It's all well and good having these options now however if clubs have failed it for season just gone, why has no one had an embargo yet or even a slap on the wrist? doesnt seem like they are doing much about it
-
Another excellent piece by Martin Samuals, but I can't help but think of sides who haven't flouted FFP rules - yet still achieved promotion to the PL eg B&HA; Huddersfield; Fulham; Watford; Burnley; Cardiff. Wolves (possibly)...
It strikes me that all those aforementioned clubs have one thing in common: very good managers. Why can't we follow their example & build a sustainable promotion push - without throwing bundles of cash about willy nilly? FWIW, I think it's high time we took a new approach.
-
The hollow notion of “Financial fair play” has never stopped Manchester Citeh from buying everything in sight. These days probably the best signing a club can make is a clever accountant with the morals of a snake.
-
Unless an actual points deduction was stipulated in advance wouldn't it be open to challenge later.
-
The hollow notion of “Financial fair play” has never stopped Manchester Citeh from buying everything in sight.
Man. City takeover happened before it came in I think and they then established themselves in CL so could attract massive sponsorship deals.
Problem with us is we never achieve anymore. We couldn't get into top 4 with all the mass spending under Lerner so had to face those consequences and now we can't even get promotion after spending 50m in two years on many proven players at this level.
The way to evade FFP is simply to go up and predictably we're making it look like the most difficult thing to achieve in football.
Surprised at the amount of people who want us to spend another 50m on more unsuitable players, it hasn't worked and we need a more long term approach that will hopefully yield short term success otherwise the club will be in even more financial trouble in a couple of years.
-
FFP does seem like a bit of a dark art.
I would guess the punishments are staggered by how much you go past the threshold ie you won’t get a 20 point deduction for going £50 over the limit so does there have to be a decision made of we’ll break the rules but this is how far we’ll push it?
Also, where it seems a bit stupid is if we know we are going to be £x short of FFP threshold and our one true saleable asset is Jack and we set a price tag of say £40m but the highest bid is £25m because the buyers know we are in the crap from FFP are we forced to sell or would there be grounds to sue as restraint of trade?? I know less about law than I do about football tactics (which is not a lot!) but from a moral point of view it all seems wrong.
Wonder if in time that 45 minutes of gutless nonsense last Saturday & the lack of accountability for the fact that we didn’t get top 2 this season will be defining moments.
-
I assume the punishment would be moderated by the fact if it’s a non compliance due to difficult trading conditions or an abuse of the system where we deliberately went outside the loss limit.
-
The hollow notion of “Financial fair play” has never stopped Manchester Citeh from buying everything in sight.
Man. City takeover happened before it came in I think and they then established themselves in CL so could attract massive sponsorship deals.
Problem with us is we never achieve anymore. We couldn't get into top 4 with all the mass spending under Lerner so had to face those consequences and now we can't even get promotion after spending 50m in two years on many proven players at this level.
The way to evade FFP is simply to go up and predictably we're making it look like the most difficult thing to achieve in football.
Surprised at the amount of people who want us to spend another 50m on more unsuitable players, it hasn't worked and we need a more long term approach that will hopefully yield short term success otherwise the club will be in even more financial trouble in a couple of years.
It's this bit, isn't it. Everyone who's allegedly flouted the regulations in the past has made bloody sure they get promoted. We could spend billions in the summer, and I still wouldn't put more than a tenner on us not fucking it up.
-
There is talk that if we paid the fines we could overcome FFP and continue to spend. First of all I have also heard of possible point deductions and Villa being a big name in the Championship would definitely be under scrutiny.
Also the owner(s) of Aston Villa or should I say the custonians do they really have the funds
I've never been convinced that Tony has the funds - if he has, why did he wait until the club was devalued by relegation before buying it?
-
The hollow notion of “Financial fair play” has never stopped Manchester Citeh from buying everything in sight.
Man. City takeover happened before it came in I think and they then established themselves in CL so could attract massive sponsorship deals.
Problem with us is we never achieve anymore. We couldn't get into top 4 with all the mass spending under Lerner so had to face those consequences and now we can't even get promotion after spending 50m in two years on many proven players at this level.
The way to evade FFP is simply to go up and predictably we're making it look like the most difficult thing to achieve in football.
Surprised at the amount of people who want us to spend another 50m on more unsuitable players, it hasn't worked and we need a more long term approach that will hopefully yield short term success otherwise the club will be in even more financial trouble in a couple of years.
It's this bit, isn't it. Everyone who's allegedly flouted the regulations in the past has made bloody sure they get promoted. We could spend billions in the summer, and I still wouldn't put more than a tenner on us not fucking it up.
Same here. The club just dosen't give out the confidence it can achieve its goals anymore. If the "been it seen it" squad couldn't achieve promotion then I won't be holding my breath on next years edition achieving it so we're in another two year cycle imo.
Once you're in the safety net of premier league they don't really care about punishing clubs for issues they had in football league. Bournemouth and Leicester were both fined pocket money for going above FFP limits.
However when QPR got relegated in 2015 they were then hit with big sanctions so not only have you got to go up but stay up and then the problems will largely go away.
-
There is talk that if we paid the fines we could overcome FFP and continue to spend. First of all I have also heard of possible point deductions and Villa being a big name in the Championship would definitely be under scrutiny.
Also the owner(s) of Aston Villa or should I say the custonians do they really have the funds
I've never been convinced that Tony has the funds - if he has, why did he wait until the club was devalued by relegation before buying it?
Because well bought is half sold. Did you learn nothing from Uncle Doug?
-
Why do I get the feeling that we'll flog everything we have of value, firmly entrenching ourselves in the middle reaches of this nothing league, and then they'll do away with FFP?
-
Provided we are clear on FFP for the season just finished, get a decent manager, spend a s*** load on players, get promoted automatically and before the season ends, get sponsored based on PL football (after all, it's supposed to be worth a fortune to clubs), dump the money in the accounts and Bob's your uncle.
-
It's all well and good having these options now however if clubs have failed it for season just gone, why has no one had an embargo yet or even a slap on the wrist? doesnt seem like they are doing much about it
Because no one has failed FFP since the rules changed, yet. A number of clubs that have failed it in the past, before the rule changes, had transfer embargos. Forest, Leeds, Bolton, Fulham, sha, Cardiff to name a few.
-
Somebody mentioned previously about the possible points deduction to drop a club from automatic promotion into the play-offs or ply-offs to below. How does this work when accounts are not due until after the season finishes. With the two past years and estimate for the year to come, surely you are not going to admit you are going to fail in advance.
-
Your not going to get an auditor to sign off on cooked books!
Man City don't fall foul of FFP as they make an absolute fortune.
-
I've never been convinced that Tony has the funds - if he has, why did he wait until the club was devalued by relegation before buying it?
I think you will find people who have money usually make it by doing this sort of thing.
-
Fining clubs for spending too much is fucking dumb.
-
We spent a large amount of cash on championship players so clubs in the league benefited from us spending and for that we get punished ...
-
I suppose the idea is to ensure you don't get a two/three tier league like the Premier League is. But when FFP was mooted there wasn't a titanic, absolutely mindboggling television deal in the pipeline. The financial goalposts are so far from where the league imagined they should be that all they've done is widened that gulf between the Premier League and those striving to be in it. I agree totally with Wenger's comments - at some point in the near future the haves will split off into their own European league based on their money-making potential, leaving the Best League in the World to contemplate life as a second-tier, financially second-rate interest to wither on the vine, like the Football League is now.
-
Whatever the ramifications of an FFP that we haven’t even failed yet, it’s a very convenient smokescreen for an owner who has spent the parachute money, taken out loans and now would have to gamble by investing his own money to try and get us up.
-
Whatever the ramifications of an FFP that we haven’t even failed yet, it’s a very convenient smokescreen for an owner who has spent the parachute money, taken out loans and now would have to gamble by investing his own money to try and get us up.
He literally isn't allowed to
-
Whatever the ramifications of an FFP that we haven’t even failed yet, it’s a very convenient smokescreen for an owner who has spent the parachute money, taken out loans and now would have to gamble by investing his own money to try and get us up.
He literally isn't allowed to
QPR owners tried that , they wrote off 60mil as loans and EFL wouldn't allow it and pursued them for a fine
-
Fuck the EFL, can we not enlist the help of the PL to get us back, after all it would be a better place for all.
A few massively over valued transfer deals for some of our shite, several inspired loans and we're home and hosed.
We must have plenty of friends in high places.
-
I thinkthey were probably glad to et rid of us in the final season
-
Fuck the EFL, can we not enlist the help of the PL to get us back, after all it would be a better place for all.
A few massively over valued transfer deals for some of our shite, several inspired loans and we're home and hosed.
We must have plenty of friends in high places.
Absolutely, and isn't it time HRH ponied up with some sponsorship money and influence?
-
follicallly challenged balls.
-
Fuck the EFL, can we not enlist the help of the PL to get us back, after all it would be a better place for all.
A few massively over valued transfer deals for some of our shite, several inspired loans and we're home and hosed.
We must have plenty of friends in high places.
Absolutely, and isn't it time HRH ponied up with some sponsorship money and influence?
Jack Grealish, by Royal Appointment.
-
Your not going to get an auditor to sign off on cooked books!
We don't need to worry about FFP just hire one of the Big Four.
From Wiki:
On 22 February 2018, MPs contested evidence from KPMG.
In one exchange MP Peter Kyle told KPMG partner Peter Meehan: "I would not hire you to do an audit of the contents of my fridge".
Rachel Reeves, chair of the business select committee, said: "Auditing is a multi-million-pound business for the Big Four. On this morning's evidence from KPMG and Deloitte, these audits appear to be a colossal waste of time and money, fit only to provide false assurance to investors, workers and the public. [...] Carillion staff and investors could see the problems at the company but those responsible - auditors, regulators, and, ultimately, the directors – did nothing to stop Carillion being driven off a cliff".
-
Your not going to get an auditor to sign off on cooked books!
We don't need to worry about FFP just hire one of the Big Four.
From Wiki:
On 22 February 2018, MPs contested evidence from KPMG.
In one exchange MP Peter Kyle told KPMG partner Peter Meehan: "I would not hire you to do an audit of the contents of my fridge".
Rachel Reeves, chair of the business select committee, said: "Auditing is a multi-million-pound business for the Big Four. On this morning's evidence from KPMG and Deloitte, these audits appear to be a colossal waste of time and money, fit only to provide false assurance to investors, workers and the public. [...] Carillion staff and investors could see the problems at the company but those responsible - auditors, regulators, and, ultimately, the directors – did nothing to stop Carillion being driven off a cliff".
The big 4 have so many high profile fuck ups it’s scandalous how they get away with it.
-
The more I hear about FFP, coupled with the fact that other clubs don't seem to be fearing it one bit, has left me wondering why we're just lying down and taking our fucking without putting up any kind of fight. I suspect we're being taken for a ride.
-
The more I hear about FFP, coupled with the fact that other clubs don't seem to be fearing it one bit, has left me wondering why we're just lying down and taking our fucking without putting up any kind of fight. I suspect we're being taken for a ride.
Nobody wants to be a test case.
-
The more I hear about FFP, coupled with the fact that other clubs don't seem to be fearing it one bit, has left me wondering why we're just lying down and taking our fucking without putting up any kind of fight. I suspect we're being taken for a ride.
Nobody wants to be a test case.
And yet we're the only ones issuing statements about how big and scary it is.
-
The more I hear about FFP, coupled with the fact that other clubs don't seem to be fearing it one bit, has left me wondering why we're just lying down and taking our fucking without putting up any kind of fight. I suspect we're being taken for a ride.
I don't think it's true that other clubs aren't fearing it. There's these rumours of a dozen clubs falling foul, yet from what I've seen only us and Wolves spent what might be considered loads recently.
In fact, type "[championship club name of your choice] fear ffp" into Google* and you'll get links to other forums and boards debating exactly this. Some Wednesday fans reckon the early window is a blessing as it'll stop them getting sanctioned.
*other search engines are available.
-
How much are we in debt?
-
http://www.financialfairplay.co.uk
-
The more I hear about FFP, coupled with the fact that other clubs don't seem to be fearing it one bit, has left me wondering why we're just lying down and taking our fucking without putting up any kind of fight. I suspect we're being taken for a ride.
Nobody wants to be a test case.
QPR did
Suspect they regretted it
-
How much are we in debt?
It’s not debt that is the problem, it is the last 2 years of trading losses.
The estimations suggest we are carrying £80 million of losses which we have to reduce by producing about £40 million of profits.
-
How much are we in debt?
It’s not debt that is the problem, it is the last 2 years of trading losses.
The estimations suggest we are carrying £80 million of losses which we have to reduce by producing about £40 million of profits.
Not quite.
Our losses over the past two seasons indicate that by the end of next season, if we do nothing, we'll have breached FFP by £40-£50m. So we have to find that much in savings (not profits). If we manage to break even in 18/19 we'll have done it. But given two years ago we lost £14m and next year our parachute payments will be £30m less than they were in that year, breaking even is going to need some pretty fundamental changes - as alluded to in Tone's statement.
-
It's a backwards situation. Tony has, probably, money to spend on the club but is being prevented from doing so by rules that, 'to ensure fair play', potentially means the club has to sell off its most valuable assets. Makes no sense. Not logical.
-
Slightly different case but apparently Uefa's financial investigators have recommended banning AC Milan from next season's europa league as their spending spree last summer went way over the limit apparently.
-
How much are we in debt?
It’s not debt that is the problem, it is the last 2 years of trading losses.
The estimations suggest we are carrying £80 million of losses which we have to reduce by producing about £40 million of profits.
I understand that but does FFP actually do what it is trying to do when a club is bought by a new owner and a lot of the previous losses are carried away by the former owner.
As an example, if we were £20m in debt but making a £5m operating profit that looked to be sustainable or increased, the club would be in a far healthier financial position than many clubs that are not at risk from FFP. How is FFP helping, particularly as the previous losses will have gone outside of football.
Wasn't FFP brought in to protect the financial state of clubs and the stability of the leagues. Perhaps if the clubs that previously went into administration had been demoted to the bottom division, we wouldn't have needed FFP.
-
As I said in another thread I read somewhere that 12 clubs have already failed ffp in the season just ended. Blues are one. I am guessing Derby might be another. The teams that went up might be others. So why the fcuk and when the fcuk is something going to be happening to them?
-
As I said in another thread I read somewhere that 12 clubs have already failed ffp in the season just ended. Blues are one. I am guessing Derby might be another. The teams that went up might be others. So why the fcuk and when the fcuk is something going to be happening to them?
I posted Yesterday that Derby are losing £3mil a month and facing a £10mil fine for FFP
Shef Wednesday made a big loss and could have issues also
Fulham and Cardiff had run out of TV cash so could of been in trouble too and Wolves would likely be in our position now
QPR its well known they have a £40mil fine they are continuing to fight ,there's hilights the flaw of the system they made a loss their owners paid off the debt but the EFL still says its a loss so want to punish them .The whole point was to avoid a Portsmouth situation but when an owner actually has the cash and pays the loss's the EFL still feel the need to take action ..
Birmingham filled accounts late and are apparently in trouble
Most clubs in the league are struggling money wise and unless a club sells someone for a large fee I think the transfer fee's in the league will be low this season
-
The difference in finances between the PL and Championship is killing the game. The more the gap widens, the more the parachute payments become and the more it creates an advantage for the relegated clubs.
-
The difference is we're Aston Villa and nobody gives a good fuck about these other clubs outside their fan base. We sell copy and bait clicks.
Small Heath going to the wall? So fucking what.
-
How much are we in debt?
It’s not debt that is the problem, it is the last 2 years of trading losses.
The estimations suggest we are carrying £80 million of losses which we have to reduce by producing about £40 million of profits.
Not quite.
Our losses over the past two seasons indicate that by the end of next season, if we do nothing, we'll have breached FFP by £40-£50m. So we have to find that much in savings (not profits). If we manage to break even in 18/19 we'll have done it. But given two years ago we lost £14m and next year our parachute payments will be £30m less than they were in that year, breaking even is going to need some pretty fundamental changes - as alluded to in Tone's statement.
We can either achieve by this generating profit eg player sales over and above their cost or reducing costs or a combination of both if you want to be semantic.
Or we can even create additional revenue by selling other assets above cost or by attracting sponsorship etc.
Either way by your estimation we have to find an additional £40 mil + from somewhere.
Most importantly it looks impossible to do this without selling Grealish.
-
The difference in finances between the PL and Championship is killing the game. The more the gap widens, the more the parachute payments become and the more it creates an advantage for the relegated clubs.
Not so much ,the payments are not enough if you are carrying over loss's in the Prem League look at Sunderland at as extreme example.They didn't have much money to spend and carried on their form from the season before and went down.
In last 2 seasons only Newcastle who came down have gone straight back up and we made the PO as did Boro but the other teams where no where close at all
But your right the TV money difference is killing the game because if you have budgeted to be in PL and go down the FFP rules and how they work out loss's ( the EFL version ) will screw you if you can't get back up quickly.
-
The more I read about it the more this whole FFP business just sounds like a load of bollocks.
-
One thing that we can do to help is go to games, we had 38k+ at Wembley, if the same amount went to VP every home game, it would generate roughly an extra £6m
That would be a good start
UTV
-
The difference is we're Aston Villa and nobody gives a good fuck about these other clubs outside their fan base. We sell copy and bait clicks.
Small Heath going to the wall? So fucking what.
So, you think other people give a fuck because we are Aston Villa?
Unfortunately, you are wrong.
At least you are consistent.
-
The difference is we're Aston Villa and nobody gives a good fuck about these other clubs outside their fan base. We sell copy and bait clicks.
Small Heath going to the wall? So fucking what.
So, you think other people give a fuck because we are Aston Villa?
Unfortunately, you are wrong.
At least you are consistent.
Spot on. Holloway was right as much as we hated hearing it.
-
As I said in another thread I read somewhere that 12 clubs have already failed ffp in the season just ended. Blues are one. I am guessing Derby might be another. The teams that went up might be others. So why the fcuk and when the fcuk is something going to be happening to them?
I posted Yesterday that Derby are losing £3mil a month and facing a £10mil fine for FFP
Shef Wednesday made a big loss and could have issues also
Fulham and Cardiff had run out of TV cash so could of been in trouble too and Wolves would likely be in our position now
QPR its well known they have a £40mil fine they are continuing to fight ,there's hilights the flaw of the system they made a loss their owners paid off the debt but the EFL still says its a loss so want to punish them .The whole point was to avoid a Portsmouth situation but when an owner actually has the cash and pays the loss's the EFL still feel the need to take action ..
Birmingham filled accounts late and are apparently in trouble
Most clubs in the league are struggling money wise and unless a club sells someone for a large fee I think the transfer fee's in the league will be low this season
Interesting if true about Derby. An Ipswich fan at work was telling me that they interviewed Lampard for their vacant manager's position but his salary demands were too high. Next thing he's off to Derby on a three year contract and apparently under no pressure to get them promoted next season.
-
The difference is we're Aston Villa and nobody gives a good fuck about these other clubs outside their fan base. We sell copy and bait clicks.
Small Heath going to the wall? So fucking what.
So, you think other people give a fuck because we are Aston Villa?
Unfortunately, you are wrong.
At least you are consistent.
Tell me more about Hilary.
Guess we're taking up column inches because nobody cares.
As the late Nasher would say #facepalm
-
The difference is we're Aston Villa and nobody gives a good fuck about these other clubs outside their fan base. We sell copy and bait clicks.
Small Heath going to the wall? So fucking what.
So, you think other people give a fuck because we are Aston Villa?
Unfortunately, you are wrong.
At least you are consistent.
Spot on. Holloway was right as much as we hated hearing it.
We've had many spells of being half arsed. But who hasn't.
Not famous? I'd say you've been living in a jungle on a remote Thai island in the Gulf of Thai, but then I've had a conversation with a man whose English extended to Ashley Young and John Carew when mentioning I was Villa. Give the self loathing a knock on the head. It's unbecoming of a gentlemen.
-
If we were to fail FFP it would be a much bigger story than if sha did. sha failing it would be a bigger story than if Burton did, and so on. It's pretty obvious really.
-
The difference is we're Aston Villa and nobody gives a good fuck about these other clubs outside their fan base. We sell copy and bait clicks.
Small Heath going to the wall? So fucking what.
So, you think other people give a fuck because we are Aston Villa?
Unfortunately, you are wrong.
At least you are consistent.
Spot on. Holloway was right as much as we hated hearing it.
We've had many spells of being half arsed. But who hasn't.
Not famous? I'd say you've been living in a jungle on a remote Thai island in the Gulf of Thai, but then I've had a conversation with a man whose English extended to Ashley Young and John Carew when mentioning I was Villa. Give the self loathing a knock on the head. It's unbecoming of a gentlemen.
We're Aston Villa, we'll fail if we like.
-
If we were to fail FFP it would be a much bigger story than if sha did. sha failing it would be a bigger story than if Burton did, and so on. It's pretty obvious really.
Yep. Biggest club in the league being perceived to have a crisis of as yet undetermined proportions will be bigger news than much else going on down here.
I appreciate it's de rigueur for a clutch to have a pop though.
-
FFP is a disaster for the Championship. If you manage to get up, it's inverably a struggle to survive. It actually protects the big boys. The financial gap between the PL and Championship is far too disproportionate.
-
Wasn’t FFP originally set up to prevent clubs overspending and subsequently going to the wall like Portsmouth or Aldershot etc?
It now seems to have morphed into a money-making machine for the footballing authorities and stifling competition amongst football clubs who ‘could’ afford to incur debt but are now not allowed to.
-
Wasn’t FFP originally set up to prevent clubs overspending and subsequently going to the wall like Portsmouth or Aldershot etc?
It now seems to have morphed into a money-making machine for the footballing authorities and stifling competition amongst football clubs who ‘could’ afford to incur debt but are now not allowed to.
It's something I've always wondered also.
It doesn't seem to fit the purpose if half of the League could be falling foul to it.
-
When you are looking at the numbers they are talking about in fines, what you are allowed to lose etc. and compare it with the actual value of clubs in the Championship, something doesn't stack up.
-
I wonder if we are hoping to get back some of the corporate match day business that we lost lock stock and barrel to the Albion in relegation?
-
I'm starting to wonder whether we should just do some house cleaning, build a younger team but not go all out to kill ourselves by selling anything that moves. Then accept our fate from FFP at the end of next season (whatever it is and we are not sure what it is exactly) and move on. We aim for promotion the season after next but give it a good go this season.
-
I wonder if we are hoping to get back some of the corporate match day business that we lost lock stock and barrel to the Albion in relegation?
That's a good point.
There will be more around I would imagine with Albion being with us again.
No comparison now that they don't offer PL footy.
I hate the phrase with a passion but Every Little will Help in our situation.
-
I'm starting to wonder whether we should just do some house cleaning, build a younger team but not go all out to kill ourselves by selling anything that moves. Then accept our fate from FFP at the end of next season (whatever it is and we are not sure what it is exactly) and move on. We aim for promotion the season after next but give it a good go this season.
What is our fate likely to be?
This thing is such a bloody confusing mess to try and get your head around.
Well mine anyway
-
The fine is scaled so that's more easily worked out.
Points deductions etc are impossible to gauge given the discretionary nature of the sanction.
-
The difference is we're Aston Villa and nobody gives a good fuck about these other clubs outside their fan base. We sell copy and bait clicks.
Small Heath going to the wall? So fucking what.
So, you think other people give a fuck because we are Aston Villa?
Unfortunately, you are wrong.
At least you are consistent.
Tell me more about Hilary.
Guess we're taking up column inches because nobody cares.
As the late Nasher would say #facepalm
Not much bravado about Bruce now is there?
Hilarious how you now decide to criticise a manager that was in charge for about three months.
-
If we'd approached last Saturday as if we were playing Fulham rather than Barca we might not be having to fret about this now. Cheers, Steve, really appreciate it, mate.
-
You ok Joleon? I've not rattled your missus have I?
-
If we'd approached last Saturday as if we were playing Fulham rather than Barca we might not be having to fret about this now. Cheers, Steve, really appreciate it, mate.
That 1st half. We could still have been 1-0 down, but it will haunt us. Still, it was only half as bad as 2000, so by 2036 we will likely have a good 90 minute performance in a final.
-
You ok Joleon? I've not rattled your missus have I?
We'll smash it next year, we are Aston Villa.
-
You ok Joleon? I've not rattled your missus have I?
We'll smasdh it next year, we are Aston Villa.
That's the spirit.
I'm not sure why you think me seeing the awful Remi Garde is hilarious. Or quite what Bruce and bravado and I have to do with anything really.
Look, I get it, you're next in line to have a go. But you're reaching Delinquent, really reaching to grasp at something. I am, as always, flattered. But best leave it to the bigger boys, blame it on the phone and move on.
Go lad, off you pop.
-
You ok Joleon? I've not rattled your missus have I?
We'll smasdh it next year, we are Aston Villa.
That's the spirit.
I'm not sure why you think me seeing the awful Remi Garde is hilarious. Or quite what Bruce and bravado and I have to do with anything really.
Look, I get it, you're next in line to have a go. But you're reaching Delinquent, really reaching to grasp at something. I am, as always, flattered. But best leave it to the bigger boys, blame it on the phone and move on.
Go lad, off you pop.
"Snidey twat" Another poster was quite correct.
-
Oh did-dums. Do you have a kewl name like the Anti-Ads Alliance? Ticks the boxes that.
I'm not snidey, I'm just too bigger game for you to hunt. And that burns, I can tell. I'll condescend the shit of you to be fair, but only in retaliation. There's nothing snidey about me, I'm entirely honest and more than happy to oblige you or anybody who wants to be confrontational with me.
-
Big game. Retaliation?
Absurd.
Carry on with your battles on here. You've had a few.
-
Surrender accepted.
A future tip, it's better to focus your strength on one thing rather than kiss chase me around multiple threads. It keeps your element of surprise in tact.
Better luck next time slick.
-
Jesus wept!
-
Jesus wept!
Yep exactly BE, just wasted some of my life reading this shit.
-
If a succession of people weren't lining up to have a pop then you wouldn't have to waste your life reading it.
I'm a know it all, I get it, but only one of many on here. I appreciate I'm the only Tory know it all so I stick out a bit more. Yet when you've got people out of the blue, who I've never engaged with before, chipping away having clearly been briefed privately by the last lot who tried and failed, then what am I to do? I ignore more than I swing back at.
-
If a succession of people weren't lining up to have a pop then you wouldn't have to waste your life reading it.
I'm a know it all, I get it, but only one of many on here. I appreciate I'm the only Tory know it all so I stick out a bit more. Yet when you've got people out of the blue, who I've never engaged with before, chipping away having clearly been briefed privately by the last lot who tried and failed, then what am I to do? I ignore more than I swing back at.
Ad's I'm not having a go at you mate, far from it. i just don't into reading pages of two posters arguing. I still love you Ads.
-
I appreciste that to be fair. Next rung down from a punathon I imagine!
I feel your love buddy!
-
You sound a little paranoid Ads. I'm not having a go but all the I'm a victim stuff is a little tiresome.
-
We can agree to disagree.
-
Also - internet football forum.
It's really not important.
-
*what others think of you.
-
Up the Villa!
-
We can agree to agree on that!
-
When do the accounts get published? And when do the powers that be fine/punish otherwise clubs who have failed FFP?
At least when the accounts are published, we will have some idea as to how deep a mess we are in.
Don't forget, with Terry and Gabby gone, we're already saving £ 100,000+ per week in wages alone.
Oh and we'll be getting a payment from selling Mr Pointy, and Gil (if the clause in his loan is to be believed), and we sold Amavi in the last financial year didn't we?? Add the latter two's wages to Messrs Terry and Gabbys and we have already made a substantial saving.
Or am I hoping too much?
-
Oh did-dums. Do you have a kewl name like the Anti-Ads Alliance? Ticks the boxes that.
I'm not snidey, I'm just too bigger game for you to hunt. And that burns, I can tell. I'll condescend the shit of you to be fair, but only in retaliation. There's nothing snidey about me, I'm entirely honest and more than happy to oblige you or anybody who wants to be confrontational with me.
No you are not and another balanced post to underline that fact.
-
Surrender accepted.
A future tip, it's better to focus your strength on one thing rather than kiss chase me around multiple threads. It keeps your element of surprise in tact.
Better luck next time slick.
Can we pack this bullshit in please?
-
You ok Joleon? I've not rattled your missus have I?
We'll smasdh it next year, we are Aston Villa.
That's the spirit.
I'm not sure why you think me seeing the awful Remi Garde is hilarious. Or quite what Bruce and bravado and I have to do with anything really.
Look, I get it, you're next in line to have a go. But you're reaching Delinquent, really reaching to grasp at something. I am, as always, flattered. But best leave it to the bigger boys, blame it on the phone and move on.
Go lad, off you pop.
"Snidey twat" Another poster was quite correct.
This too.
-
Nobody is too big, too important or too snide to ban.
-
When do the accounts get published? And when do the powers that be fine/punish otherwise clubs who have failed FFP?
At least when the accounts are published, we will have some idea as to how deep a mess we are in.
Don't forget, with Terry and Gabby gone, we're already saving £ 100,000+ per week in wages alone.
Oh and we'll be getting a payment from selling Mr Pointy, and Gil (if the clause in his loan is to be believed), and we sold Amavi in the last financial year didn't we?? Add the latter two's wages to Messrs Terry and Gabbys and we have already made a substantial saving.
Or am I hoping too much?
Football is all about hope and I'm feeling exactly the same as you. It will take a miracle to keep Grealish IMO but while he's still here, I will keep hoping. Hopefully we can drop another half a dozen from the squad, ridding us of even more wages. I'm also hoping that Traore moves on from Boro because we have a sell on fee there as well.
The problem with moving on players is that looking at the wages of Gardner, Hogan, Taylor, DeLaet, Bunn, Elphick and Lansbury, no Championship side will be able to match them and none are good enough for the prem.
-
When do the accounts get published? And when do the powers that be fine/punish otherwise clubs who have failed FFP?
At least when the accounts are published, we will have some idea as to how deep a mess we are in.
Don't forget, with Terry and Gabby gone, we're already saving £ 100,000+ per week in wages alone.
Oh and we'll be getting a payment from selling Mr Pointy, and Gil (if the clause in his loan is to be believed), and we sold Amavi in the last financial year didn't we?? Add the latter two's wages to Messrs Terry and Gabbys and we have already made a substantial saving.
Or am I hoping too much?
I'm sure I've read, and possibly posted on here, maybe, that provisional figures had to be in in March so's that any spankings can be meted out before any promoted sides get their "golden share" or whatever it's called.
-
At the end of next March, the management accounts will need to have demonstrated we have balanced the books in order not to attract a penalty. I assume that is in line with the tax year or possibly the last chunk of TV payments because our financial year end is May.
-
I wonder if it is possible to have a “ kitchen sink year” under FFP.
This is where you throw all the bad news into the current financial year and clear the decks.
For Villa it would mean clearing all the deadwood and taking all the contractualhits this year, taking the FFP punishment and starting afresh 2019.
This would require pre negotiations with the authorities now and agreeing the penalty. Just as Financial institutions do with the regulators.
-
I wonder if it is possible to have a “ kitchen sink year” under FFP.
This is where you throw all the bad news into the current financial year and clear the decks.
For Villa it would mean clearing all the deadwood and taking all the contractualhits this year, taking the FFP punishment and starting afresh 2019.
This would require pre negotiations with the authorities now and agreeing the penalty. Just as Financial institutions do with the regulators.
The problem is you'd risk failing for the next 2 seasons as well, unless there's something that accounts for that so you're not repeatedly punished for the same thing.
Honestly the whole thing seems like a mess to me, there's just so many things that aren't clear about how it works.
-
I don't think there would be anything wrong with approaching the authorities. Nothing to lose in any event.
-
So now we want the club to turn itself in and negotiate a sanction for essentially just doing what everyone else is doing. FFS. No.
-
You ok Joleon? I've not rattled your missus have I?
We'll smasdh it next year, we are Aston Villa.
That's the spirit.
I'm not sure why you think me seeing the awful Remi Garde is hilarious. Or quite what Bruce and bravado and I have to do with anything really.
Look, I get it, you're next in line to have a go. But you're reaching Delinquent, really reaching to grasp at something. I am, as always, flattered. But best leave it to the bigger boys, blame it on the phone and move on.
Go lad, off you pop.
"Snidey twat" Another poster was quite correct.
This too.
Fair enough. Apologies.
-
They’d probably tell us that we don’t need to fail FFP, you just need to sell a few stars.
-
I wonder if it is possible to have a “ kitchen sink year” under FFP.
This is where you throw all the bad news into the current financial year and clear the decks.
For Villa it would mean clearing all the deadwood and taking all the contractualhits this year, taking the FFP punishment and starting afresh 2019.
This would require pre negotiations with the authorities now and agreeing the penalty. Just as Financial institutions do with the regulators.
I was thinking similar although for different reasons. If we do need to find 40m, say we managed to do that, BUT then chose to spend 10m on players. failed FFP and took the fine and/or point deduction, but the following season wouldn't we be better off, because we'd have a rebuilt squad on smaller wages? So basically writing off next season so we can have a squad again rather than making do with what's left and the kids. Obviously if they hit us with a 15m fine it wouldn't be worth doing, but if it was a points deduction so they stop us getting into the play-offs, overall would playing the system mean we would be stronger long-term?
-
Would taking a sponsorship deal on the name of the stadium help towards ffp? I don't know if it's allowed under football league rules, but I wouldn't care if the stadium was renamed. To me, and probably most other football fans it would always be Villa Park anyway. So if it's allowed then Dr Tony could consider sponsoring the stadium and chuck in some cash to help the ffp situation. Could also be a barometer of Dr T's actual personal wealth.
-
Would taking a sponsorship deal on the name of the stadium help towards ffp? I don't know if it's allowed under football league rules, but I wouldn't care if the stadium was renamed. To me, and probably most other football fans it would always be Villa Park anyway. So if it's allowed then Dr Tony could consider sponsoring the stadium and chuck in some cash to help the ffp situation. Could also be a barometer of Dr T's actual personal wealth.
It can be done, but it has to be deemed 'market value' and no one really knows what that is. So even if he wanted to he couldn't spend £15m a year for stadium naming rights for example.
-
Is it possible to put a thread on 'loop mode' as we seem to be going round in circles a bit now!
-
Would taking a sponsorship deal on the name of the stadium help towards ffp? I don't know if it's allowed under football league rules, but I wouldn't care if the stadium was renamed. To me, and probably most other football fans it would always be Villa Park anyway. So if it's allowed then Dr Tony could consider sponsoring the stadium and chuck in some cash to help the ffp situation. Could also be a barometer of Dr T's actual personal wealth.
It can be done, but it has to be deemed 'market value' and no one really knows what that is. So even if he wanted to he couldn't spend £15m a year for stadium naming rights for example.
A number of Firms now provide This type of valuation.
-
So now we want the club to turn itself in and negotiate a sanction for essentially just doing what everyone else is doing. FFS. No.
I think you may be over reacting a little.
You would prefer us to play Russian roulette with FFP ?
-
Has sponsoring the stadium for no more than market value become the new 'Why didn't Barry take the penalty?
-
Has sponsoring the stadium for no more than market value become the new 'Why didn't Barry take the penalty?
And just as funny.
-
Isn't this FFP discussion a bit of a red herring, in that it assumes Xia actually wants to put more money in.
In his statement, he also said this:
We are all aware that we will face severe FFP challenges next season. I am an Aston Villa fan. But I am also a businessman. Under the current circumstances, I think the club needs to rethink not only the past two years but also the past ten years. Villa needs to be a sustainable football club. People join. People leave. That is the cycle of football. But the football club always remains through it all. This is the ultimate reality that cannot be changed, but I can assure you that everyone behind the scenes is working tirelessly towards achieving our ultimate goal.
We have been heavily investing for the past two seasons. However, the loss on Saturday means that we need to change a lot of things. No one wanted to see the club have to go through this, but I believe that only changes can help the club to progress towards the positive direction and this requires the joint efforts of everyone associated with this great football club.
That does not sound to me like a man desperately looking for ways to get more money into the club.
-
I think it's an ego thing. Had we gone up I think he would have pumped more in because it gets him press and he likes the attention of it all. Slumming it for a 3rd year in the Championship takes that prestige away. He wants to be in the Premier league, for his ego IMO as much as anything else.
-
I think it's an ego thing. Had we gone up I think he would have pumped more in because it gets him press and he likes the attention of it all. Slumming it for a 3rd year in the Championship takes that prestige away. He wants to be in the Premier league, for his ego IMO as much as anything else.
A bit harsh to be honest. He doesn't across to me as an ego manic.
-
I think it's an ego thing. Had we gone up I think he would have pumped more in because it gets him press and he likes the attention of it all. Slumming it for a 3rd year in the Championship takes that prestige away. He wants to be in the Premier league, for his ego IMO as much as anything else.
A good summary of Ellis as well. A lot of businessmen will just see the ridiculous amount of money that the clubs receive for being just a member of that league.Ego will be secondary.It was a pity that Lerner didn't have any business acumen despite his background.
-
Wasn't part of the sale conditions that Tony had to pay Lerner an additional significant wedge on regaining Premier League status? So he clearly budgeted for that. But I do feel FFP and a tightening of funds are a happy coincidence for him.
-
Wasn't part of the sale conditions that Tony had to pay Lerner an additional significant wedge on regaining Premier League status? So he clearly budgeted for that. But I do feel FFP and a tightening of funds are a happy coincidence for him.
This to me is barmy. How would FFP, which means he's making no money be a happy thing for him ???
-
Isn't this FFP discussion a bit of a red herring, in that it assumes Xia actually wants to put more money in.
In his statement, he also said this:
We are all aware that we will face severe FFP challenges next season. I am an Aston Villa fan. But I am also a businessman. Under the current circumstances, I think the club needs to rethink not only the past two years but also the past ten years. Villa needs to be a sustainable football club. People join. People leave. That is the cycle of football. But the football club always remains through it all. This is the ultimate reality that cannot be changed, but I can assure you that everyone behind the scenes is working tirelessly towards achieving our ultimate goal.
We have been heavily investing for the past two seasons. However, the loss on Saturday means that we need to change a lot of things. No one wanted to see the club have to go through this, but I believe that only changes can help the club to progress towards the positive direction and this requires the joint efforts of everyone associated with this great football club.
That does not sound to me like a man desperately looking for ways to get more money into the club.
Well this has been my whole point. Other owners aren't coming out and issuing statements and talking about FFP because either they're busy ignoring it or they're working behind the scenes to find ways around it. I don't actually believe Xia has any desire to spend more money on us one way or the other, I'd imagine he's looked at what successive managers have spent 'his' (?) millions on and thought "Right, well that hasn't worked." FFP is a convenient way of battening down the hatches while avoiding alienating the entire fanbase.
-
If that's the case, Xia needs to sell the club and move on.
-
It’s possible he’s just massively fucked off like the rest of us. That he needed to make a statement, get away for a bit, let things calm down and come back a little more rationale in thought. I expect we will hear from the club starting with Bruce’s future this week.
It has to be frustrating for someone who has come to love the club he bought, has huge ambitions for it, finding it mired in the second tier yet again and not being able to personally invest in it. And I think in part it is am ego thing, because he probably had business partners or friends back home that he wanted to claim he owned a PL club.
-
I think it's an ego thing. Had we gone up I think he would have pumped more in because it gets him press and he likes the attention of it all. Slumming it for a 3rd year in the Championship takes that prestige away. He wants to be in the Premier league, for his ego IMO as much as anything else.
A bit harsh to be honest. He doesn't across to me as an ego manic.
I like the doc but that must be a joke?
-
He must have thought he had done enough with the money he put in, the resources that were available and a manager that was a promotion expert.
His statement was full of emotion but light on action and strategy which is understandable but not reassuring.
We don’t know where he goes from here, maybe he doesn’t either.
Let’s hope he doesn’t turn into Lerner.
-
I think it's an ego thing. Had we gone up I think he would have pumped more in because it gets him press and he likes the attention of it all. Slumming it for a 3rd year in the Championship takes that prestige away. He wants to be in the Premier league, for his ego IMO as much as anything else.
In the West we would call it 'ego' but in China and the Far East it is 'face'. It will be a massive loss of face for him to fail so I do not expect him to do a Lerner.
-
He's just the latest in the long line of businessmen who think this football lark is easy and then find out it's not like running a normal company.
-
Isn't this FFP discussion a bit of a red herring, in that it assumes Xia actually wants to put more money in.
In his statement, he also said this:
We are all aware that we will face severe FFP challenges next season. I am an Aston Villa fan. But I am also a businessman. Under the current circumstances, I think the club needs to rethink not only the past two years but also the past ten years. Villa needs to be a sustainable football club. People join. People leave. That is the cycle of football. But the football club always remains through it all. This is the ultimate reality that cannot be changed, but I can assure you that everyone behind the scenes is working tirelessly towards achieving our ultimate goal.
We have been heavily investing for the past two seasons. However, the loss on Saturday means that we need to change a lot of things. No one wanted to see the club have to go through this, but I believe that only changes can help the club to progress towards the positive direction and this requires the joint efforts of everyone associated with this great football club.
That does not sound to me like a man desperately looking for ways to get more money into the club.
Or it could mean not throwing money at it but a clear progressive business plan.
-
Out of interest, has a relegated team thrown vast sums at getting straight back up to and failed before? There must be examples but I can’t think of any.
-
He's just the latest in the long line of businessmen who think this football lark is easy and then find out it's not like running a normal company.
what exactly did you expect him to do differently? And if we are going to question his managerial appointments which is fine, given the state he bought us in there was no guarantee at all that whoever would have corrected things. As much as it very disappointing not to go up, we have no doubt arrested a very bad situation that could have left us where Sunderland is today. That we are now in the this position due to a "football" regulation and cannot spend out of it isn't directly tied to the stewardship of the owner. Like all people in business, mistakes are made. But in hindsight for the past two years he's not made that many that have really negatively impacted the club. He's put faith in managers and given them money to get us back up as quickly as possible. I was rather hoping for that post Randy.
-
Out of interest, has a relegated team thrown vast sums at getting straight back up to and failed before? There must be examples but I can’t think of any.
Er, Boro last season and us the season before
-
Out of interest, has a relegated team thrown vast sums at getting straight back up to and failed before? There must be examples but I can’t think of any.
Not really however previously it wouldn't be an issue as there was no FFP..
-
He's just the latest in the long line of businessmen who think this football lark is easy and then find out it's not like running a normal company.
what exactly did you expect him to do differently? And if we are going to question his managerial appointments which is fine, given the state he bought us in there was no guarantee at all that whoever would have corrected things. As much as it very disappointing not to go up, we have no doubt arrested a very bad situation that could have left us where Sunderland is today. That we are now in the this position due to a "football" regulation and cannot spend out of it isn't directly tied to the stewardship of the owner. Like all people in business, mistakes are made. But in hindsight for the past two years he's not made that many that have really negatively impacted the club. He's put faith in managers and given them money to get us back up as quickly as possible. I was rather hoping for that post Randy.
You do wonder whether anybody advised Xia before he started spending money that we would run into problems with FFP. Or did we get towards the end of the 2016/17 season and then somebody realised.
-
He's just the latest in the long line of businessmen who think this football lark is easy and then find out it's not like running a normal company.
what exactly did you expect him to do differently? And if we are going to question his managerial appointments which is fine, given the state he bought us in there was no guarantee at all that whoever would have corrected things. As much as it very disappointing not to go up, we have no doubt arrested a very bad situation that could have left us where Sunderland is today. That we are now in the this position due to a "football" regulation and cannot spend out of it isn't directly tied to the stewardship of the owner. Like all people in business, mistakes are made. But in hindsight for the past two years he's not made that many that have really negatively impacted the club. He's put faith in managers and given them money to get us back up as quickly as possible. I was rather hoping for that post Randy.
You do wonder whether anybody advised Xia before he started spending money that we would run into problems with FFP. Or did we get towards the end of the 2016/17 season and then somebody realised.
I think they have been fully aware but the rules have also got more stringent in that time. Clearly the mission was promotion supported by what should have been more than sufficient level of investment. And it was promotion at the first attempt under RDM, then Bruce. There was more than enough time for Bruce to correct the poor start. But in the end it hasn't worked out that way. I think they would have spoken about the consequences of not being promoted many times confident it wouldn't come to that. In the end it has.
-
He's just the latest in the long line of businessmen who think this football lark is easy and then find out it's not like running a normal company.
what exactly did you expect him to do differently? And if we are going to question his managerial appointments which is fine, given the state he bought us in there was no guarantee at all that whoever would have corrected things. As much as it very disappointing not to go up, we have no doubt arrested a very bad situation that could have left us where Sunderland is today. That we are now in the this position due to a "football" regulation and cannot spend out of it isn't directly tied to the stewardship of the owner. Like all people in business, mistakes are made. But in hindsight for the past two years he's not made that many that have really negatively impacted the club. He's put faith in managers and given them money to get us back up as quickly as possible. I was rather hoping for that post Randy.
You do wonder whether anybody advised Xia before he started spending money that we would run into problems with FFP. Or did we get towards the end of the 2016/17 season and then somebody realised.
Wyness always stated that next year (meaning the season that's just finished) was OK but the worry was always going to be if we were still here for the following season (meaning next season).
I think they were fully aware of the ramifications of failure. It would be an insult to them to suggest that they hadn't discussed and allowed for it.
-
Are there cases where clubs show willing, say find 50-60% of the required amount but still fall short? I know we've fucked up over a series of years and we should have addressed the situation before however finding £40m is pretty impossible with out paralysing the club's future. That shouldn't be the motivation of FFP.
-
Are there cases where clubs show willing, say find 50-60% of the required amount but still fall short? I know we've fucked up over a series of years and we should have addressed the situation before however finding £40m is pretty impossible with out paralysing the club's future. That shouldn't be the motivation of FFP.
It is the motivation , they don’t want clubs bankrolling success. So therefore forcing us into a fire sale and effectively paralyzing our future has achieved the objective.
-
Out of interest, has a relegated team thrown vast sums at getting straight back up to and failed before? There must be examples but I can’t think of any.
Er, Boro last season and us the season before
Er, why are you counting us as two teams and Boro were more or less neutral in terms of ins and outs last season.
-
He's just the latest in the long line of businessmen who think this football lark is easy and then find out it's not like running a normal company.
what exactly did you expect him to do differently? And if we are going to question his managerial appointments which is fine, given the state he bought us in there was no guarantee at all that whoever would have corrected things. As much as it very disappointing not to go up, we have no doubt arrested a very bad situation that could have left us where Sunderland is today. That we are now in the this position due to a "football" regulation and cannot spend out of it isn't directly tied to the stewardship of the owner. Like all people in business, mistakes are made. But in hindsight for the past two years he's not made that many that have really negatively impacted the club. He's put faith in managers and given them money to get us back up as quickly as possible. I was rather hoping for that post Randy.
Just an observation rather than a specific criticism. I think in most businesses, if you invest far more capital than your rivals then you expect a return. Football can be different. Maybe if he realised that he wouldn't have gone down the instant promotion route with Bruce, or maybe he wouldn't have bought us at all. End of the day, he gambled on getting up and lost. No-one can say we weren't aware of the price of losing.
-
The great thing is that in the last few years we’ve been an unsuccessful not spending as much as our rivals club AND an unsuccessful outspending all of our rivals club. A change is as good as a holiday as they say.
-
Out of interest, has a relegated team thrown vast sums at getting straight back up to and failed before? There must be examples but I can’t think of any.
Er, Boro last season and us the season before
Er, why are you counting us as two teams and Boro were more or less neutral in terms of ins and outs last season.
I didn't realise that Boro had recouped so much to be honest
Mind you, going by what i just read we are 25m in the black on last seasons transfer business once Amavi's fee is included
So, over our two seasons in the Championship we've only had a net spend of about 20m
Hardly throwing the kitchen sink at it
-
It's the wage bill. I bet this season's wasn't massively different to the last one in the PL. Plenty of big earners still on the books, players convinced to drop down a division, assembling the creme de la creme of Championship players.
It will not have come cheap.
-
He's just the latest in the long line of businessmen who think this football lark is easy and then find out it's not like running a normal company.
what exactly did you expect him to do differently? And if we are going to question his managerial appointments which is fine, given the state he bought us in there was no guarantee at all that whoever would have corrected things. As much as it very disappointing not to go up, we have no doubt arrested a very bad situation that could have left us where Sunderland is today. That we are now in the this position due to a "football" regulation and cannot spend out of it isn't directly tied to the stewardship of the owner. Like all people in business, mistakes are made. But in hindsight for the past two years he's not made that many that have really negatively impacted the club. He's put faith in managers and given them money to get us back up as quickly as possible. I was rather hoping for that post Randy.
You do wonder whether anybody advised Xia before he started spending money that we would run into problems with FFP. Or did we get towards the end of the 2016/17 season and then somebody realised.
Wyness always stated that next year (meaning the season that's just finished) was OK but the worry was always going to be if we were still here for the following season (meaning next season).
I think they were fully aware of the ramifications of failure. It would be an insult to them to suggest that they hadn't discussed and allowed for it.
I meant going back to when he first came in. The first I heard of it was at the end of the 2016/17 season at the time when Bruce was looking towards bringing players in. The comments from Wyness have mostly been during the last 12 months.
-
Are there cases where clubs show willing, say find 50-60% of the required amount but still fall short? I know we've fucked up over a series of years and we should have addressed the situation before however finding £40m is pretty impossible with out paralysing the club's future. That shouldn't be the motivation of FFP.
It is the motivation , they don’t want clubs bankrolling success. So therefore forcing us into a fire sale and effectively paralyzing our future has achieved the objective.
Bankrolling success eh. That never happens does it Manchester City and Chelsea.
-
It's the wage bill. I bet this season's wasn't massively different to the last one in the PL. Plenty of big earners still on the books, players convinced to drop down a division, assembling the creme de la creme of Championship players.
It will not have come cheap.
Our wage bill last season was about the tenth highest in the country.
-
As a matter of interest - how much of our wage bill do gate receipts cover?
-
As a matter of interest - how much of our wage bill do gate receipts cover?
Next to bugger all.
-
I was going to quote of an article that I was sure I'd seen somewhere which I thought had said that our wage bill for 16/17 was going to be £62million. I did a quick bit of mental rithmatic, and decided that it had to be bollocks. For anyone that might have some knowledge of this, can you please tell me I saw no such article, and it was just a nightmare I once had, a result of too much cheese?
-
this article says the wage bill was 53.3m in 16/17
:-[https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/43088167 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/43088167)
That includes most of the rdm and bruce signings apart from whelan and elmo. Seeing we've lost gabby, Hutton, gollini, johnstone, bunn from those figures and the loss of terry, snodgrass, samba, gabban, onamha since, you would hope we'd be down in the 30-40m mark by now. Large for the championship perhaps but not unmanageable,
-
It really is completely baffling how the wage bill can be so high if you go through the squad and try and work out what everyone's earning
You'd still come up way short of what we're told it actually is
-
well i think when i first read the article i divided the wage figure versus the number of players at that time and i got a rough figure of 30k a week on average. obviously that wages bill of 53.3m also includes wages to players that left during 16/17 so that would bump it up a bit
-
It'd be like 25 players on 40k a week. That's why I dismissed my recollection. I know there's the youngsters, ladies, staff, execs all need weighing in, but the vast bulk must surely go on the First Team squad. I just cor get me 'ead round it.
-
As a matter of interest - how much of our wage bill do gate receipts cover?
Next to bugger all.
Pretty much what I figured. I would have guessed less than 10%.
-
Here we go.....
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2018/06/04/steve-bruces-aston-villa-future-uncertain-against-backdrop-financial/
-
As a matter of interest - how much of our wage bill do gate receipts cover?
Next to bugger all.
Pretty much what I figured. I would have guessed less than 10%.
A million years ago Mark Ansell said he hoped we could increase TV/prize and commercial income so that that figure would reduce to 33%.
-
32,000 bums, 23 games, £20 a pop, near £15million. It's not too shabby if all it had to go towards was wages. And at this level, it does show that playing in front of a full house can make a sizeable financial difference.
-
Depressing. Bruce was the wrong man for the job.
-
32,000 bums, 23 games, £20 a pop, near £15million. It's not too shabby if all it had to go towards wages. And at this level, it does show that playing in front of a full house can make a sizeable financial difference.
It's nowhere near £20 after season ticket discounts and concessions.
-
Won't that be countered with boxes, corporate etc though? An 8 seater box in Witton Lane Stand is £1000-1700 a game.
-
I was basing that on my fucking shit seat that I have to sit in AGAIN (clenches fist, grinds teeth) being valued at a nominal £14.
-
Won't that be countered with boxes, corporate etc though? An 8 seater box in Witton Lane Stand is £1000-1700 a game.
I'm not sure if that doesn't count as commercial rather than matchday.
-
Plus it's a 23 game season. A 500 season ticket gives about 21 per match. Concessions much less. Probably evens out sons 16-17 per bum on seat. About 12.5 million. Or a McCormack, Richards, Lansbury, Gabby, Terry etc. If it wage bill is still over £50 million a season we need to seriously trim it and fast. Getting it down to £30 million ish in this division would still be high.
-
Won't that be countered with boxes, corporate etc though? An 8 seater box in Witton Lane Stand is £1000-1700 a game.
I'm not sure if that doesn't count as commercial rather than matchday.
Commercial.
-
Based on the 16/17 accounts (our first season in the Championship):
- Gate receipts = £10.7m
- Commercial revenue = £12.3m
- Wages costs = £61.5m (of which £8m was NIC and pension costs)
- 401 full time employees - 175 players and coaches; 168 commercial, 58 maintenance & admin
In the Summer following the above figures we signed:
- Terry
- Snodgrass
- Whelan
- Elmohamady
plus others who will all have added to the wage bill.
We got rid of a few too but not high earners (ie Veretout, Baker, Sanchez, Amavi, Bacuna, Kozak, De Laet, Gardner, Elphick, Tshibola, McCormack, Sissoko).
I would estimate that for the season just finished the wage bill will have got worse rather than better - Terry alone (if £60k a week is to be believed) represented more than 1/20th of our entire club's wage bill!!
-
So I didn't imagine that £62m.
Faaarkin ell.
-
Based on the 16/17 accounts (our first season in the Championship):
- Gate receipts = £10.7m
- Commercial revenue = £12.3m
- Wages costs = £61.5m (of which £8m was NIC and pension costs)
- 401 full time employees - 175 players and coaches; 168 commercial, 58 maintenance & admin
In the Summer following the above figures we signed:
- Terry
- Snodgrass
- Whelan
- Elmohamady
plus others who will all have added to the wage bill.
We got rid of a few too but not high earners (ie Veretout, Baker, Sanchez, Amavi, Bacuna, Kozak, De Laet, Gardner, Elphick, Tshibola, McCormack, Sissoko).
I would estimate that for the season just finished the wage bill will have got worse rather than better - Terry alone (if £60k a week is to be believed) represented more than 1/20th of our entire club's wage bill!!
nah, the reality is that 53.3m includes the wages of gestade, westwood, and those you mentioned.. All on premiership wages. You only have to look at the drop in wages of 30m from the season before to realise they weren't on peanuts. Most of that drop was relegation clauses
-
Here we go.....
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2018/06/04/steve-bruces-aston-villa-future-uncertain-against-backdrop-financial/
Two errors
The playoff was over two weeks ago ?....10 days actually
Parachute payments have finished ?? No - one payment left.
Schoolboy errors - do we trust the rest of it?
-
I read a few articles about Championship wages. From what I can glean, average player wages in the league 2 seasons ago were about £8k a week but included some examples such as Jonjo Shelvey at Newcastle on £80,000 a week.
This is before any NI and pensions costs which probably add 20-25% to that
I tried to work out what all the non-playing and youth team costs would be, allowing for some expensive execs and decided an average of £40k per year, including NI and pensions should be enough, then times 450 non first team staff makes £18 million. Then you've got the costs of keeping the ground and training ground up and running, rates, the leccy bill, IT etc etc probably take that up to £25 million.
So that's £25 million before any first team wages. Which is most of the gate and commercial money.
So the TV and parachute payments have to cover the rest. By the way, I read parachute payments last 4 years.
-
I read a few articles about Championship wages. From what I can glean, average player wages in the league 2 seasons ago were about £8k a week but included some examples such as Jonjo Shelvey at Newcastle on £80,000 a week.
This is before any NI and pensions costs which probably add 20-25% to that
I tried to work out what all the non-playing and youth team costs would be, allowing for some expensive execs and decided an average of £40k per year, including NI and pensions should be enough, then times 450 non first team staff makes £18 million. Then you've got the costs of keeping the ground and training ground up and running, rates, the leccy bill, IT etc etc probably take that up to £25 million.
So that's £25 million before any first team wages. Which is most of the gate and commercial money.
So the TV and parachute payments have to cover the rest. By the way, I read parachute payments last 4 years.
Pretty sure they last 3 years only.
-
I thought it was three, but seems not. They drop to £9.6m for each of the third and fourth years, from what I can see. A still tidy sum, but half of what we received in year two. What saving are we looking at with the departures of Gabby, Terry and the loan players?
-
Looking at all these figures gets me wondering if we may become unsustainable, yet unable to invest. Madness I tell you, madness.
-
It's becoming easier to understand how the likes of Forest, Wednesday and Leeds got bogged down in here.
-
"In a document on Companies House dated February 2, 48 hours after the transfer window shut, the club sold on future income due on Amavi and Sanchez to the Australian Macquarie bank"
From the Daily Record.
It's going to be a very interesting summer and season.
-
Which means we will have lost money on that. Sounds a bit odd. I'm sure there's an accountant or 2 that will tell us what the implications of it are.
-
"In a document on Companies House dated February 2, 48 hours after the transfer window shut, the club sold on future income due on Amavi and Sanchez to the Australian Macquarie bank"
From the Daily Record.
It's going to be a very interesting summer and season.
That sounds like a standard factoring arrangement to be honest. Although I can't see where it's mentioned on Companies House to have a closer look.
-
I read a very valid point somewhere that said something along the lines of:-
“when the outcome of a single football match sends one club into financial nervana and the losing club into (what looks like) financial meltdown, then something is not right with the system”.
I think they are right.
-
"In a document on Companies House dated February 2, 48 hours after the transfer window shut, the club sold on future income due on Amavi and Sanchez to the Australian Macquarie bank"
From the Daily Record.
It's going to be a very interesting summer and season.
That sounds like a standard factoring arrangement to be honest. Although I can't see where it's mentioned on Companies House to have a closer look.
I can't see it either, weird.
-
It's not unusual for companies to take such measures to smooth cash flow when they know something is coming in, but for a company like Villa it's a little bit odd I'd say. If Tony has got oodles of cash, why doesn't he just give the club a short term sub until outstanding transfer fee installments from other clubs are paid, rather than paying a percentage of the fee to a bank in factoring charges?
-
I know absolutely nothing about accounts, but that does sound a bit worrying to me
-
Hmmm. Tony Tony Tony. What have you been up to.
-
If you know nothing about accounting why would anyone be worried about some accounting practices ?
-
I know absolutely nothing about accounts, but that does sound a bit worrying to me
Invoice discounting and factoring are used by companies to smooth their cash flow. They basically sell their debts to the bank/factoring comany for a small percentage of the amount outstanding, in order to get the cash in more quickly. It tends to happen where a company has say, 30 day payment terms with its customers, but has to pay staff or suppliers sooner than that. You often see it where a small company is dealing with a much bigger one, eg Tesco suppliers, who are being held to difficult credit terms, eg 90 days, or smaller companies who are in their first few years of operation. When I was an auditor for PwC, I used to audit a few factoring companies and banks who provided this sort of finance, and never saw a company like Villa using their services. It's not necessarily a big deal, but you know, something else to make you go "hmmmmmm".
-
The mirror (https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/aston-villa-put-alan-hutton-12648187.amp) have now picked up this story, with the added information that we weren't due the final instalment of €4m of the Amavi fee until July '19. We hadn't had the first one yet, either.
-
Hello Mirror journo. Nice to see you trawling around for stories
-
It's not unusual for companies to take such measures to smooth cash flow when they know something is coming in, but for a company like Villa it's a little bit odd I'd say. If Tony has got oodles of cash, why doesn't he just give the club a short term sub until outstanding transfer fee installments from other clubs are paid, rather than paying a percentage of the fee to a bank in factoring charges?
Indeed. It looks somewhat concerning.
-
Well it doesn't sound good does it .....
-
I read a very valid point somewhere that said something along the lines of:-
“when the outcome of a single football match sends one club into financial nervana and the losing club into (what looks like) financial meltdown, then something is not right with the system”.
I think they are right.
Also something wrong with a system where billions of pounds are generated by a particular sport each year yet grassroots facilities in that sport remain a substandard in many cases.
-
31 pages so far on FFP, and no one is the wiser.
All I can say, is why are we worrying??
The shite down the road and about 9 or 10 other clubs are rumoured to be in the same boat, but have we heard anything from their fans??? Have we feck!!!
When the REAL NEWS breaks, we can see where we're at, until then lets all CALM THE FECK DOWN and start bullshitting ourselves that ENGERLAND are going to win the World Cup!!Lol.
-
I thought it was three, but seems not. They drop to £9.6m for each of the third and fourth years, from what I can see. A still tidy sum, but half of what we received in year two. What saving are we looking at with the departures of Gabby, Terry and the loan players?
It used to be 4 years, now it's 3 so this season will be our last payment.
-
"In a document on Companies House dated February 2, 48 hours after the transfer window shut, the club sold on future income due on Amavi and Sanchez to the Australian Macquarie bank"
From the Daily Record.
It's going to be a very interesting summer and season.
That sounds like a standard factoring arrangement to be honest. Although I can't see where it's mentioned on Companies House to have a closer look.
Nothing standard about this, around 45000 company’s use Recivables Finance in the UK based on B2B whole turnover arrangements. Macquarie are not one of the standard providers.
This is a transaction based arrangement FutureFunds Flow, Discounted Revenue , there are various terms to describe these facilities.
There is nothing wrong or illegal about this but the money will be a lot more expensive than a Bank loan for example.
-
Isn't it three for clubs relegated from the season after we went down, ones that had benefited from the increased telly deal?
From a legal help site, From the 2016/17 season, the payment system was changed so that the money will be distributed to relegated clubs over three years rather than four. (https://www.inbrief.co.uk/football-law/premier-league-parachute-payment/)
-
Isn't it three for clubs relegated from the season after we went down, ones that had benefited from the increased telly deal?
From a legal help site, From the 2016/17 season, the payment system was changed so that the money will be distributed to relegated clubs over three years rather than four. (https://www.inbrief.co.uk/football-law/premier-league-parachute-payment/)
Yep.
-
Yep, that's why I said it's 3 now ;)
Apparently if you go up and are relegated after 1 season you only get 2 payments.
-
So clubs coming down now, assuming they weren't massively in the red beforehand, can* bankroll it and lump the lot on going back up first time of asking. Which makes me wonder what state 'boro, Hull and Sunderland were in, and have they cautiously settled in for a stay?
*I in no way endorse this as a sensible thing to do.
-
I assume the first 2 payments are the same amount as a club receiving 3 payments receive, but they don't get the third payment.
-
Usually there’s no smoke without fire and the more coming out about us and Dr is very concerning.
I do think he wants rid and has run into financial issues which is making the day to day harder. Let’s be honest, no one knows anything about Xia or his ‘wealth’
-
Usually there’s no smoke without fire and the more coming out about us and Dr is very concerning.
I do think he wants rid and has run into financial issues which is making the day to day harder. Let’s be honest, no one knows anything about Xia or his ‘wealth’
If you don't know anything about him, why do you think he wants rid? There's no evidence of it really.
-
Usually there’s no smoke without fire and the more coming out about us and Dr is very concerning.
I do think he wants rid and has run into financial issues which is making the day to day harder. Let’s be honest, no one knows anything about Xia or his ‘wealth’
If you don't know anything about him, why do you think he wants rid? There's no evidence of it really.
Just a gut feeling on this. No actual context. Last year and his first in charge when any articles or press were questioning his intent he would always fire back. Just seems odd we are now having specific articles claiming he needs to sell/has no cash and yet he doesn’t respond to them!?
-
I've seen nothing specific which says he needs to sell nor has no cash. Plenty of regurgitated speculation, but not specific.
-
Usually there’s no smoke without fire and the more coming out about us and Dr is very concerning.
I do think he wants rid and has run into financial issues which is making the day to day harder. Let’s be honest, no one knows anything about Xia or his ‘wealth’
If you don't know anything about him, why do you think he wants rid? There's no evidence of it really.
I'm not sure he wants rid but im also not sure he has the collateral or the expertise to take us forward ..
-
I'm flabbergasted, as I get to peer deeper, at just how hand-to-mouth all clubs at every level exist. I know they're not expected to be profitable for the sake of being profitable, but it's mental! Today's today, and tomorrow can go hang.
-
"In a document on Companies House dated February 2, 48 hours after the transfer window shut, the club sold on future income due on Amavi and Sanchez to the Australian Macquarie bank"
From the Daily Record.
It's going to be a very interesting summer and season.
That sounds like a standard factoring arrangement to be honest. Although I can't see where it's mentioned on Companies House to have a closer look.
What is does suggest though is that we’ve cashed on our chips on any Amavi money already, so any netting off of the FFP shortfall with this cash can be forgotten
-
"In a document on Companies House dated February 2, 48 hours after the transfer window shut, the club sold on future income due on Amavi and Sanchez to the Australian Macquarie bank"
From the Daily Record.
It's going to be a very interesting summer and season.
That sounds like a standard factoring arrangement to be honest. Although I can't see where it's mentioned on Companies House to have a closer look.
What is does suggest though is that we’ve cashed on our chips on any Amavi money already, so any netting off of the FFP shortfall with this cash can be forgotten
It should make no difference to FFP.
-
One thing Keith Wyness mentioned when was doing the forums earlier in year and was transcribed by Bham Mail was;
"Financial Fair Play is a very boring and complex subject. The politics around it are also potentially changing right now.“
Does that possibly mean that the FFP rules might have changed / be changing?
Clutching at straws :-)
-
One thing Keith Wyness mentioned when was doing the forums earlier in year and was transcribed by Bham Mail was;
"Financial Fair Play is a very boring and complex subject. The politics around it are also potentially changing right now.“
Does that possibly mean that the FFP rules might have changed / be changing?
Clutching at straws :-)
There was a meeting of clubs to discuss it in March it needed one more club to vote against it , I'm assuming it didn't go our way as nothing more as been said about it
-
In light of current events is anyone starting to think FFP is a smokescreen?
-
Tony Sly me thinks
-
I will be very surprised if we are not officially for sale by the end of the week
-
In light of current events is anyone starting to think FFP is a smokescreen?
No. I'm fully satisfied that our wage bill is astronomical for where we are, and it'd be a massive millstone for whoever owned us and was looking to take us forward, given the current ffp framework.
All the other stuff is incidental, and if ffp was supposed to be a smokescreen, it's not working very well, is it?
-
In light of current events is anyone starting to think FFP is a smokescreen?
Its not just a smokescreen. Its a real problem
But I agree it could be a convenient excuse
Worrying times.
-
Does anyone know what the likely punishment is for failing the FFP test? If it's a fine, or a transfer embargo, surely that's a price worth paying for keeping the family silver for another season? Otherwise we will be another Forest or Leeds.
-
Theres a range
Bigger risk is administration driven by short term cash flow. Xia apparently has been putting in £4m per month but can't get his money out of the country.
Administration comes with a 12 point reduction. That plus a fire sale and only two months till the transfer window closes spells potential relegation if you start badly
-
31 pages so far on FFP, and no one is the wiser.
All I can say, is why are we worrying??
The shite down the road and about 9 or 10 other clubs are rumoured to be in the same boat, but have we heard anything from their fans??? Have we feck!!!
When the REAL NEWS breaks, we can see where we're at, until then lets all CALM THE FECK DOWN and start bullshitting ourselves that ENGERLAND are going to win the World Cup!!Lol.
Has the REAL NEWS broken now?
-
Just a thought from this side: the legal aspect...
ANNEX XII: Voluntary agreements for break-even requirement
A. Principles
1. A club may apply to the UEFA Club Financial Control Body investigatory chamber
to enter into a voluntary agreement with the aim of complying with the break-even
requirement.
2. A club is eligible to apply to enter into a voluntary agreement if it:
i) has been granted a valid licence to enter the UEFA club competitions by
its national licensor but has not qualified for a UEFA club competition in the
season that precedes the entry into force of the voluntary agreement; or
ii) has qualified for a UEFA club competition and fulfils the break-even
requirement in the monitoring period that precedes the entry into force of
the voluntary agreement; or
iii) has been subject to a significant change in ownership and/or control within
the 12 months preceding the application deadline.
Could point iii above be what we are strategically angling towards at the moment?? Change ownership, abandon FPP?
-
Just a thought from this side: the legal aspect...
ANNEX XII: Voluntary agreements for break-even requirement
A. Principles
1. A club may apply to the UEFA Club Financial Control Body investigatory chamber
to enter into a voluntary agreement with the aim of complying with the break-even
requirement.
2. A club is eligible to apply to enter into a voluntary agreement if it:
i) has been granted a valid licence to enter the UEFA club competitions by
its national licensor but has not qualified for a UEFA club competition in the
season that precedes the entry into force of the voluntary agreement; or
ii) has qualified for a UEFA club competition and fulfils the break-even
requirement in the monitoring period that precedes the entry into force of
the voluntary agreement; or
iii) has been subject to a significant change in ownership and/or control within
the 12 months preceding the application deadline.
Could point iii above be what we are strategically angling towards at the moment?? Change ownership, abandon FPP?
Looks like it could be an option ..hopefully
-
Just a thought from this side: the legal aspect...
ANNEX XII: Voluntary agreements for break-even requirement
A. Principles
1. A club may apply to the UEFA Club Financial Control Body investigatory chamber
to enter into a voluntary agreement with the aim of complying with the break-even
requirement.
2. A club is eligible to apply to enter into a voluntary agreement if it:
i) has been granted a valid licence to enter the UEFA club competitions by
its national licensor but has not qualified for a UEFA club competition in the
season that precedes the entry into force of the voluntary agreement; or
ii) has qualified for a UEFA club competition and fulfils the break-even
requirement in the monitoring period that precedes the entry into force of
the voluntary agreement; or
iii) has been subject to a significant change in ownership and/or control within
the 12 months preceding the application deadline.
Could point iii above be what we are strategically angling towards at the moment?? Change ownership, abandon FPP?
Those are the UEFA rules - unless the Anglo Italian is coming back I'm not sure we'll need to worry about these rules for a while.
The key thing is whether there's a similar clause in the EFL rules.
-
31 pages so far on FFP, and no one is the wiser.
All I can say, is why are we worrying??
The shite down the road and about 9 or 10 other clubs are rumoured to be in the same boat, but have we heard anything from their fans??? Have we feck!!!
When the REAL NEWS breaks, we can see where we're at, until then lets all CALM THE FECK DOWN and start bullshitting ourselves that ENGERLAND are going to win the World Cup!!Lol.
Has the REAL NEWS broken now?
Exactly, has the REAL NEWS broken. That is;
If you believe the SkySports News "We understand...." and the BBC "sources etc.." and a certain SVC and his "3 sources" then yes the real news has broken.
Until its in an official statement from the club that we are being sold, wound up or going into administration and players x,y and z have been sold, then sorry I'm not buying into the clickbait bullshit, and as I said before, maybe we should all take a step back, take a deep breath and wait.
And while we're waiting, look forward to the press and media ripping into our national teams manager and players as soon as we drop a bollock in the World Cup.
-
BBC days PSG has to sell 60m euros of players to fit within ffp rules.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/44474415
-
It will be interesting to see how they respond. Do nothing and take a derisory fine or sell a reserve player to a Qatari team for €60 million?
-
As its turned out FFP seems to have been a convenient excuse all along......
-
QPR have lost their claim that FFP is unlawful and will have to pay £42m in penalties having agreed to settle.
https://twitter.com/bbcsport/status/1022784076154056704?s=12
-
That’s got to sting.
-
Won’t that mean their owner the Malaysian chap will have to lend them the £42m as a soft loan? Thus meaning their losses could get worse?!
-
The settlement includes a £17m fine, paying £3m of the EFL's legal costs and the agreement from club shareholders to write off £22m of outstanding loans.
January 2019 transfer embargo
The £17mil fine is paid of 10 years as well so I don't actually think its worked out too bad for them
-
Will the £42 million count against them for the purposes of calculating their next FFP period, thus making them likely to fail again? Does this relate to the era before they got promoted to the Premier League or is this under the new rules?
-
That has to be a major warning to us. I presume we are banking on Jack to sort FFP for us.
-
So somebody sticks their neck out to challenge how lawful FFP is and gets an unjust £42m fine. I have no love for QPR whatsoever, but it's all very hard to swallow for me. Lots of comments on that tweet saying it wouldn't happen to a top tier club, and how true is that? All designed to protect the Premier League and the sexy Sky clubs. Awful.
-
How much did QPR overshoot FFP by. Does anybody know?
-
I don’t think QPR’s fine is actually that bad as it’s paid over 10 years. Will be very interesting to see if we decide to gamble.
-
I don’t think QPR’s fine is actually that bad as it’s paid over 10 years. Will be very interesting to see if we decide to gamble.
If by gamble you mean take a £17m fine as opposed to selling Jack for £20m instead of £40m or just keeping him, where is the gamble?!?
-
I don’t think QPR’s fine is actually that bad as it’s paid over 10 years. Will be very interesting to see if we decide to gamble.
Yes and some of it is a share right off as far I can tell so its 17mil over 10 years so 1.7ml a year and a 1 window embargo
-
Unfortunately this’ll prove Doc was a phoney all along and gambled on going up with the bit of dosh he had. I for one didn’t want to believe that but it’s clear now FFP was a smokescreen
-
Unfortunately this’ll prove Doc was a phoney all along and gambled on going up with the bit of dosh he had. I for one didn’t want to believe that but it’s clear now FFP was a smokescreen
I had suspicions around that too, but in fairness I don't think it's self-evident yet. The new owners have done nothing yet to suggest that we aren't still trying to comply with FFP and reduce our losses, and until such a time as there is a statement made - either explicit or implicit, such as retaining Grealish despite a serious bid coming in - we can't assume or deduce that IMO.
-
Seems if you simply ignore FFP and pay a fine of 4 million a year there is little risk ...we have been paying that amount for Micah Richards past two seasons
-
£3m in costs. 5% bonus on that would go down well. Be fuck tonne of Counsel fees mind.
-
Yeah pay the fine once Villa are up. Have the tools to take us up if we can just push on.
More chance of going up by keeping this group of players and owners can afford it.
If the chessie staying on and signing a contract is true then some indication where we are at
-
This is Villa. You know we would be the one club to get the points deduction. EFL would lick their lips at making an example of us.
-
£3m in costs. 5% bonus on that would go down well. Be fuck tonne of Counsel fees mind.
The costs were due to QPR challenging the decision weren't they? It has dragged on over a 4 year period.
Again, the costs will be spread over a long period so will not impact too greatly.
I wonder how the money will ever be paid if the club are permitted to operate at a £39 million loss over a 3 year period. How do you enforce it against a business that is operating at a loss? Your only option would be to apply to get the company struck off.
-
You wind the motherfuckers up.
-
This is Villa. You know we would be the one club to get the points deduction. EFL would lick their lips at making an example of us.
I'll go on record as saying I don't think anyone will be docked points under the current setup, if it has no effect (i.e. a club in 8th drops to 10th) then it's pointless but if it takes someone out of a promotion/play off place or puts them into a relegation place then it would obviously go to appeal, given the tight timescales of everything you'd need to have the appeal heard between the sanction being applied (probably in April) and the playoffs/end of season. That's a tiny window for that process given the 4 year precedent above. Even being a couple of weeks late could have huge ramifications with teams not knowing which league they'll be in and playoff games being cancelled until the teams can be confirmed.
If they put specifics into the rules (if you're over by £xm then we'll deduct y points and a sliding scale of values) then it's enforceable but the current vague nature of it means the clubs would hold all the cards.
-
You wind the motherfuckers up.
Exactly but the EFL wouldn't do that would they? It is a ridiculous situation.
The only people who might are the lawyers involved in the proceedings. Even then, they may prefer £300,000 a year for 10 years as an alternative.
-
This is Villa. You know we would be the one club to get the points deduction. EFL would lick their lips at making an example of us.
I'll go on record as saying I don't think anyone will be docked points under the current setup, if it has no effect (i.e. a club in 8th drops to 10th) then it's pointless but if it takes someone out of a promotion/play off place or puts them into a relegation place then it would obviously go to appeal, given the tight timescales of everything you'd need to have the appeal heard between the sanction being applied (probably in April) and the playoffs/end of season. That's a tiny window for that process given the 4 year precedent above. Even being a couple of weeks late could have huge ramifications with teams not knowing which league they'll be in and playoff games being cancelled until the teams can be confirmed.
If they put specifics into the rules (if you're over by £xm then we'll deduct y points and a sliding scale of values) then it's enforceable but the current vague nature of it means the clubs would hold all the cards.
That's how I see it but the club would seek a court injunction to prevent the deduction until a case was heard in court.
-
As has been said countless times. The rules have been toughened precisely because of what QPR and other clubs did. But they have to be punished according to previous rules
I'd say this is a signal that they're pretty serious
-
This whole ffp malarkey is way too complicated. Surely they could devise a simpler more transparent set of rules so those of us who aren't a legal and financial boffin can understand what it's all about. Also what happens to all the fines?
-
As has been said countless times. The rules have been toughened precisely because of what QPR and other clubs did. But they have to be punished according to previous rules
I'd say this is a signal that they're pretty serious
I think the fines and transfer sanctions will be but as I say, points deductions are either meaningless or massively punishing to the point that they would be contested, for that reason I just don't see it happening, and blocking a promotion definitely won't happen.
-
As has been said countless times. The rules have been toughened precisely because of what QPR and other clubs did. But they have to be punished according to previous rules
I'd say this is a signal that they're pretty serious
I think the fines and transfer sanctions will be but as I say, points deductions are either meaningless or massively punishing to the point that they would be contested, for that reason I just don't see it happening, and blocking a promotion definitely won't happen.
Points deductions are never meaningless. Really don't understand your previous argument either. They wouldn't apply the deductions as a penalty in the first place if it was to be overturned on appeal. Whatever they do in this space will stick, because it has to, otherwise the whole league laughs at it/them. It's literally a waste of their time and resources to do anything that can be easily overturned.
-
As has been said countless times. The rules have been toughened precisely because of what QPR and other clubs did. But they have to be punished according to previous rules
I'd say this is a signal that they're pretty serious
I think the fines and transfer sanctions will be but as I say, points deductions are either meaningless or massively punishing to the point that they would be contested, for that reason I just don't see it happening, and blocking a promotion definitely won't happen.
Points deductions are never meaningless. Really don't understand your previous argument either. They wouldn't apply the deductions as a penalty in the first place if it was to be overturned on appeal. Whatever they do in this space will stick, because it has to, otherwise the whole league laughs at it/them. It's literally a waste of their time and resources to do anything that can be easily overturned.
It's meaningless because prize money, isn't based on league places so dropping from 7th to 21st (and anything in between) is irrelevant so giving a points deduction to those teams is a worthless punishment. Whereas for team who drop out of the playoffs or into the relegation places that points deduction could be crippling and have far reaching consequences for the club. The argument would therefore be that, because the punishment is decided by a panel with no precedent or guidelines in place, clubs are being punished unfairly based on either who they are or on their league position. I'm not saying they'd win but it would be something that could be going through courts for a fair while, and that creates huge problems for the leagues and the clubs involved. They can only avoid this if they provide documentation to the clubs giving specific details of what infringement would instigate a deduction and the number of points involved.
Look at the deduction for going into admin, no contests it because it's very clear but, in this circumstance, the vague nature of the ruling is in the favour of the clubs not the league.
-
I agree, the lack of precedent or specifics means that a points deduction leading to relegation or lack of promotion would without doubt be challenged.
We now have owners that have the ammunition to take this on.
They do have good grounds to calculate serious fines based on the QPR ruling though.
-
Given all the inward transfer activity, seems that the new owners fancy their lawyers over the EFL's when it comes to FFP!!!
-
Given all the inward transfer activity, seems that the new owners fancy their lawyers over the EFL's when it comes to FFP!!!
Or two very rich gamblers.Read into that what you wish, 40 mill or so between them isn't much.God forbid.
-
To paraphrase what the great man said "would you want to bet against them?"
-
To paraphrase what the great man said "would you want to bet against them?"
Not a chance :)
-
An interesting article about FFP on the BBC.
Record TV rights deal saw gap from Premier League to EFL widen to £133m in first year.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/44981103
-
"This loss is not the same as the accounting losses published by clubs, as some costs - such as infrastructure, academy, community and women's football - are excluded."
-
And that is our get out jail free card.
The figures for the 2015-16 period show that with an operating loss of £81.3m. Which is were our "£40m FFP hole" comes from.
However, the club’s statement states losses of £79.6m due to “exceptional items” for “for the impairment of tangible fixed assets and intangible assets”.
As the BBC has stated, (as in Appendix D of the EFL FFP rules) these don't count!
-
It seems that financial accounting is the new rock n roll - whoo hoo
I don't have a clue what any of it means :(
-
And that is our get out jail free card.
The figures for the 2015-16 period show that with an operating loss of £81.3m. Which is were our "£40m FFP hole" comes from.
However, the club’s statement states losses of £79.6m due to “exceptional items” for “for the impairment of tangible fixed assets and intangible assets”.
As the BBC has stated, (as in Appendix D of the EFL FFP rules) these don't count!
actually that was our explanation for the last 2 seasons, those figures have no impact on this years assessment.
-
The figures for the 2015-16 period show that with an operating loss of £81.3m. Which is were our "£40m FFP hole" comes from.
No it isn't.
-
There is no way our very rich business men would have even blinked in our direction if they had not had a team of experts looking into every financial nook and crannie and ways to not incur any penalties with FFP. Men like this amass this sort of wealth not by fortune but by managing detail.
It did not take long for the EFL team to speak with them, listen to thier plan and ratify the deal.
It may still take a while to have full financial support from them but I'm sure it is already being planned for
-
Record TV rights deal saw gap from Premier League to EFL widen to £133m in first year.
The gap = the drawbridge between the rich top 6-ish and the rest.
-
There is no way our very rich business men would have even blinked in our direction if they had not had a team of experts looking into every financial nook and crannie and ways to not incur any penalties with FFP. Men like this amass this sort of wealth not by fortune but by managing detail.
It did not take long for the EFL team to speak with them, listen to thier plan and ratify the deal.
It may still take a while to have full financial support from them but I'm sure it is already being planned for
Whilst driving home from VP last Saturday I listened to Pat Murphy say the Villa takeover incredibly only took 6 days as the new owners had 30 accountants and lawyers working 24 hours a day reviewing the accounts etc to get the deal done. He also said the Wigan manager had informed him that their takeover took a year.
I concluded that these guys mean business and know what they are doing.
-
Well if their clever accountants have found a way round FFP then explain the transfers..... If you have a fortune available then transfers happen because you meet the inflated fees asked. you're certainly not struggling to buy a championship quality centre half. I don't see any evidence we aren't going to follow fpp
-
Well if their clever accountants have found a way round FFP then explain the transfers..... If you have a fortune available then transfers happen because you meet the inflated fees asked. you're certainly not struggling to buy a championship quality centre half. I don't see any evidence we aren't going to follow fpp
We probably are... sort of. It will take a while to get the bullshit sponsorships in place that will allow us to spend more freely.
-
Well if their clever accountants have found a way round FFP then explain the transfers..... If you have a fortune available then transfers happen because you meet the inflated fees asked. you're certainly not struggling to buy a championship quality centre half. I don't see any evidence we aren't going to follow fpp
We probably are... sort of. It will take a while to get the bullshit sponsorships in place that will allow us to spend more freely.
You mean we could end up with a boiler doing dance moves on the touch line like some other club?
-
If it's a wealthy boiler I'm all for it.
-
Yeah Bosch / Worcester, not your Pottertons. Show us your money.
-
Well if their clever accountants have found a way round FFP then explain the transfers..... If you have a fortune available then transfers happen because you meet the inflated fees asked. you're certainly not struggling to buy a championship quality centre half. I don't see any evidence we aren't going to follow fpp
As I said we may have to play this slowly at the moment and I would suggest the last thing we need now is to start throwing money around - these guys will have to show a measured and business like approach over time. Getting into the Prem opens a completely new set of rules and doors but we still cannot just buy our way there
-
Birmingham City, who are 20th in the Championship with four points, are facing a 12-point deduction for breaking rules on spending, in a landmark case for the English Football League.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2018/09/07/exclusive-birmingham-facing-12-point-deduction-breaking-efl/
I just thought I would drag this back up as it has obvious implications regarding our own situation.
-
Not quite the same.
The Noses have really pissed the league off. They were under embargo and still tried to sign and register Pederson.
-
Yes I agree and I'm not really comparing their situation with ours.
But with FFP looming over us and many other teams its interesting to see how this pans out.
-
Not quite the same.
The Noses have really pissed the league off. They were under embargo and still tried to sign and register Pederson.
Yep, this is a follow on sanction because they ignored the first one, it's really not the same thing. I can understand a points deduction in this case and, if they included the threat of a points deduction (and the number of points involved) when placing the transfer embargo then Blues really haven't got a case to argue against it.
-
He's one of our own, he's one of our own, journo John Perry - he's one of our own!
-
Not quite the same.
The Noses have really pissed the league off. They were under embargo and still tried to sign and register Pederson.
Yep, this is a follow on sanction because they ignored the first one, it's really not the same thing. I can understand a points deduction in this case and, if they included the threat of a points deduction (and the number of points involved) when placing the transfer embargo then Blues really haven't got a case to argue against it.
Discussing their own problems with FFP, it took them a full page and a half to get round to talking about us.
-
Aston Villa
- Have not failed FFP
- Have cooperated with authorities when minor embargo was sanctioned.
- Have new owners with a business plan to ease issues.
Birmingham City
- have failed FFP
- Were placed under embargo and tried to register a player
There is no comparison but still they try.
-
I keep reading we haven't breached FFP, which is great. But are we on course to at the end of this season?
-
Mat Hughes reporting in today’s Times that we are keeping a close eye on what happens to the rags as we are potentially facing the same punishment ie 12 points, albeit next season. Does this mean we are gambling on going up again this season?
-
Mat Hughes reporting in today’s Times that we are keeping a close eye on what happens to the rags as we are potentially facing the same punishment ie 12 points, albeit next season. Does this mean we are gambling on going up again this season?
Announcing to the league in March that we are selling jack come season end for £25m would bide us a little time ;-)
-
Aston Villa could face a points deduction next season if they are found in breach of financial rules.
According to a report in The Times, Villa could be docked 12 Championship points next season.
It comes as rivals Birmingham City prepare to face a disciplinary panel on charges of breaking the EFL's profit and sustainability rules.
The Times claims Villa are also set to face chares for breaking the spending cap.
"Villa have posted an aggregate loss of £37.1 million during their two seasons in the second tier, giving them very little room to comply with rules that permit losses of £39 million over a three-year period before submitting their next results to the EFL in March," states the report in The Times.
The reduction in Villa's parachute payments this season from £33 million to £15 million and transfer proceeds smaller than last summer could also hinder Villa's cause.
If the breach is more than £15 million over three years then under new EFL guidelines Villa could face a 12 point deduction in the 2019-20 season.
-
If true this only emphasises further the absolute criticality in going up this season. Tick tock
-
Well sort of, I reckon at the moment Bruce is worth about the equivalent of a 20
point penalty.
-
So apparently we are paying Bolasie wages in full - £80k per week!
I’m no expert on FFP but that has to be a concern.
-
FFP is such a big deal. I can’t belive that our new owners are so naive or stupid that they have not performed all of the necessary due diligence and analysis that makes sure we will not break the rules.
-
You really wouldn't think they'd just do the same mistake again
But I have to say I don't understand how it isn't going to be a big concern. We've got almost no headroom to make further losses this season I think - last season we were losing £5m per month by the end of it and that was on higher parachute payments
The 'sell Grealish' card isn't going to raise enough now, ditto Chester Kodjia or adomah
But as I say you just have to think the new owners haven't gone for shit or bust again. I just can't figure out how
-
So apparently we are paying Bolasie wages in full - £80k per week!
I’m no expert on FFP but that has to be a concern.
Just a bit! Besides you have to ask if that 3 and a half million outlay could have been spent more wisely on signing a permanent centre half or indeed other positions. At least if we buy them its not "dead" money.
-
So apparently we are paying Bolasie wages in full - £80k per week!
I’m no expert on FFP but that has to be a concern.
Just a bit! Besides you have to ask if that 3 and a half million outlay could have been spent more wisely on signing a permanent centre half or indeed other positions. At least if we buy them its not "dead" money.
I'd be surprised if that was the case bearing in mind we couldn't afford to bring Terry back in for the same reason. I'd say we're possibly paying half.
-
So apparently we are paying Bolasie wages in full - £80k per week!
I’m no expert on FFP but that has to be a concern.
Just a bit! Besides you have to ask if that 3 and a half million outlay could have been spent more wisely on signing a permanent centre half or indeed other positions. At least if we buy them its not "dead" money.
I'd be surprised if that was the case bearing in mind we couldn't afford to bring Terry back in for the same reason. I'd say we're possibly paying half.
I hope so clampy. I can see the advantages of using the loan market, and give Bruce his due it worked pretty well for him last season, but its still a hell of a lot of money we've spent over the last couple of seasons with not one playing asset to show for it
-
So apparently we are paying Bolasie wages in full - £80k per week!
I’m no expert on FFP but that has to be a concern.
That can't be true surely?!
I imagine for example we're paying pretty much all of McCormack's wages still, it's a regular thing when high earning players are loaned out to leagues below that the parent club pays vast majority of their salary.
Please don't tell me this is another promotion or bust style gamble as we did last season. Hopefully the owners didn't have the same brainwave as a few posters on here in early August saying if we kept Grealish we'd win the league.
The option was there to sell him for 20m and significantly lessen the liabilities we have to FFP.
-
Aston Villa could face a points deduction next season if they are found in breach of financial rules.
According to a report in The Times, Villa could be docked 12 Championship points next season.
It comes as rivals Birmingham City prepare to face a disciplinary panel on charges of breaking the EFL's profit and sustainability rules.
The Times claims Villa are also set to face chares for breaking the spending cap.
"Villa have posted an aggregate loss of £37.1 million during their two seasons in the second tier, giving them very little room to comply with rules that permit losses of £39 million over a three-year period before submitting their next results to the EFL in March," states the report in The Times.
The reduction in Villa's parachute payments this season from £33 million to £15 million and transfer proceeds smaller than last summer could also hinder Villa's cause.
If the breach is more than £15 million over three years then under new EFL guidelines Villa could face a 12 point deduction in the 2019-20 season.
Not good if true. Never be surprised how easy it is to repeat the mistakes of the past. I get the feeling promotion is just as important this season.
The communication of our financial situation to the fans has been terribly poor throughout all my time following Villa. Doug, Lerner, Xia and now the new owners.
I dont just want a new flag or to be "part of the pride". I want to know whats happening to safeguard the club first and foremost as it is a business with many loyal customers.
-
Just wonder if the new owners see where we are by January and for the sake of FFP have a bit of a fire sale then if promotion is not on the horizon.
-
Just wonder if the new owners see where we are by January and for the sake of FFP have a bit of a fire sale then if promotion is not on the horizon.
Yep, it's hard to see how we won't have to sell at least Grealish in Jan, particularly if we need to shore up the defence and find compensation money to pay Bruce off and maybe lever a replacement out of their current role.
-
What a fucking joy...
-
I cannot see how they can possibly have dragged us from the fire then tossed us straight back in. There has to be a plan other than 'we'll get promoted'. I'm no businessman, but that is not an acceptable risk to take on a multi million pound investment.
-
We'll sell Grealish surely? Not sure we'll get a massive amount for him mind, the way he's played this season.
-
Is it possible that the new owners have taken legal advice, and said advice has recommended that we take it to the courts if they imposeba deduction? Restraint of trade or something like it?
I obviously have no idea but they haven't acted like they care too much about it
-
We'll sell Grealish surely? Not sure we'll get a massive amount for him mind, the way he's played this season.
We’re supposedly trying to get him to sign a new contract? I’m an institutionalised pessimist but I can’t see they don’t have this covered in some way. It would be monumentally stupid after the near miss last summer to do it all again.
-
You'd hope so.
-
Over on the Purslow thread, there is talk of a possible 20 point deduction? I thought it was a maximum of 12?
-
Now that he's signed a 5 year deal, does Grealish's value, and probable release clause, help us towards FFP in any way? i.e. by being an asset on the books..
-
Now that he's signed a 5 year deal, does Grealish's value, and probable release clause, help us towards FFP in any way? i.e. by being an asset on the books..
No, his value is in the transfer fee as he is a youth player who cost nothing so would be pure profit on the books.
-
Now that he's signed a 5 year deal, does Grealish's value, and probable release clause, help us towards FFP in any way? i.e. by being an asset on the books..
No, his value is in the transfer fee as he is a youth player who cost nothing so would be pure profit on the books.
I thought he would now be counted as a saleable asset worth £X as opposed to £Y previously? However, I know nothing about finance. let alone FFP.
-
Now that he's signed a 5 year deal, does Grealish's value, and probable release clause, help us towards FFP in any way? i.e. by being an asset on the books..
No, his value is in the transfer fee as he is a youth player who cost nothing so would be pure profit on the books.
I thought he would now be counted as a saleable asset worth £X as opposed to £Y previously? However, I know nothing about finance. let alone FFP.
That wouldn't work because who's to say how much a player is worth until they've been sold and someone has paid that amount.
-
Just wonder if the new owners see where we are by January and for the sake of FFP have a bit of a fire sale then if promotion is not on the horizon.
Due to the playoffs though, pretty much everyone down to the bottom five or six clubs could theoretically finish 6th at Christmas.
-
It’s got to help hasn’t it? He will amortise over five years as opposed to the 1.5 years that was left?
-
It’s got to help hasn’t it? He will amortise over five years as opposed to the 1.5 years that was left?
I think that's what I was trying to say...
-
There is no amortisation with Grealish. He's a former youth player, so has no value in the accounts. The fact that he's signed a new contract doesn't change that. Whatever his theoretical value is, is totally irrelevant. The only time he'll appear in a set of accounts for transfer value and amortisation is when we sell him. His whole sales value will be profit for us, and then his cost will appear in Spurs' accounts, written off over the length of the contract there.
-
There is no amortisation with Grealish. He's a former youth player, so has no value in the accounts. The fact that he's signed a new contract doesn't change that. Whatever his theoretical value is, is totally irrelevant. The only time he'll appear in a set of accounts for transfer value and amortisation is when we sell him. His whole sales value will be profit for us, and then his cost will appear in Spurs' accounts, written off over the length of the contract there.
Bugger.
-
The FFP rules are an absolute joke. The very clubs who created this like Man City and Chelsea have flouted the rules for years and haven't received a single point deduction. Even Bournemouth have broke the rules twice and just received fines only. The hounding of Championship clubs is totally unfair. FFP actually protects the top sides, ridiculous!
-
The FFP rules are an absolute joke. The very clubs who created this like Man City and Chelsea have flouted the rules for years and haven't received a single point deduction. Even Bournemouth have broke the rules twice and just received fines only. The hounding of Championship clubs is totally unfair. FFP actually protects the top sides, ridiculous!
FFP has worked in the Championship as it was introduced to prevent the amount of clubs going into administration due to spending way more than their income. The problem was to apply the same regulations to the Premier League, where a different problem occurs.
-
The FFP rules are an absolute joke. The very clubs who created this like Man City and Chelsea have flouted the rules for years and haven't received a single point deduction. Even Bournemouth have broke the rules twice and just received fines only. The hounding of Championship clubs is totally unfair. FFP actually protects the top sides, ridiculous!
FFP has worked in the Championship as it was introduced to prevent the amount of clubs going into administration due to spending way more than their income. The problem was to apply the same regulations to the Premier League, where a different problem occurs.
The intention was sound but they made no room for new owners coming in and wiping away all debt.
-
The FFP rules are an absolute joke. The very clubs who created this like Man City and Chelsea have flouted the rules for years and haven't received a single point deduction. Even Bournemouth have broke the rules twice and just received fines only. The hounding of Championship clubs is totally unfair. FFP actually protects the top sides, ridiculous!
FFP has worked in the Championship as it was introduced to prevent the amount of clubs going into administration due to spending way more than their income. The problem was to apply the same regulations to the Premier League, where a different problem occurs.
The intention was sound but they made no room for new owners coming in and wiping away all debt.
That’s exactly what I struggle to understand. I totally get Tony fucked up and we should be penalised but it makes no sense to punish us if we solved our own problems by getting new investment in
-
The FFP rules are an absolute joke. The very clubs who created this like Man City and Chelsea have flouted the rules for years and haven't received a single point deduction. Even Bournemouth have broke the rules twice and just received fines only. The hounding of Championship clubs is totally unfair. FFP actually protects the top sides, ridiculous!
FFP has worked in the Championship as it was introduced to prevent the amount of clubs going into administration due to spending way more than their income. The problem was to apply the same regulations to the Premier League, where a different problem occurs.
The intention was sound but they made no room for new owners coming in and wiping away all debt.
That’s exactly what I struggle to understand. I totally get Tony fucked up and we should be penalised but it makes no sense to punish us if we solved our own problems by getting new investment in
The reverse to that argument is that it disadvantages the smaller clubs who have little chance of attracting a billionaire or three.
-
The FFP rules are an absolute joke. The very clubs who created this like Man City and Chelsea have flouted the rules for years and haven't received a single point deduction. Even Bournemouth have broke the rules twice and just received fines only. The hounding of Championship clubs is totally unfair. FFP actually protects the top sides, ridiculous!
FFP has worked in the Championship as it was introduced to prevent the amount of clubs going into administration due to spending way more than their income. The problem was to apply the same regulations to the Premier League, where a different problem occurs.
The intention was sound but they made no room for new owners coming in and wiping away all debt.
That’s exactly what I struggle to understand. I totally get Tony fucked up and we should be penalised but it makes no sense to punish us if we solved our own problems by getting new investment in
The reverse to that argument is that it disadvantages the smaller clubs who have little chance of attracting a billionaire or three.
Surely, the FL would want to encourage money coming in through new ownership as there is very little coming in from elsewhere. Money coming in would generally circulate at this level.
-
The FFP rules are an absolute joke. The very clubs who created this like Man City and Chelsea have flouted the rules for years and haven't received a single point deduction. Even Bournemouth have broke the rules twice and just received fines only. The hounding of Championship clubs is totally unfair. FFP actually protects the top sides, ridiculous!
Surely under the Xia reign, we have effectively tried to do a Chelsea or City and tried to buy success? Stoke seem to be doing likewise and it's going to pot for them too...
What's incredibly worrying is that little appears to have changed in the new regime. Sanctioning the Bolasie loan deal while we had one centre back at the club...It's like a conscious decision was taken to gamble again on promotion this season to avoid FFP.
-
Surely, the FL would want to encourage money coming in through new ownership as there is very little coming in from elsewhere. Money coming in would generally circulate at this level.
And circulate all the way into the players' pockets.
-
Spot on Bronte. It becomes more worrying every day that the Lerner/Xia ethos of legitimised inertia is taking root with the new owners. No green shoots of hope anywhere to be seen.
-
The problem is that Bruce stepped into the vacuume created by the previous regime leaving.
He has, until recently been the most senior person at the club.
So it’s been dodgy transfers, burgers chips and ice cream every day.
-
Spot on Bronte. It becomes more worrying every day that the Lerner/Xia ethos of legitimised inertia is taking root with the new owners. No green shoots of hope anywhere to be seen.
I find it unbelievable that the new owners would look at the clusterfuck that went before, buy the club and then repeat the exact same mistakes at enormous financial cost to themselves. But this is the Villa, so who knows.
-
Any other organization and I would agree with you Mike.
-
Any other organization and I would agree with you Mike.
I'm trying really hard to believe but it's all so opaque except where it's downright contradictory.
-
Paying potential player coaches/managers by means of shares (now or in the future) wouldn't get around any FFP would it? (Unlikely, but just wondering...)
Am still presuming paying off Bruce and adding a new guy to the payroll is an issue, except we managed to bring in some expensive loans so it kind of discounts that presumably?
-
I wonder what the view from the football league is on us? They probably look at us with our history of bringing through many youth products and are probably chuckling at us paying full whack for likes of Bolaise yet youth teams products that could save us money like O'Hare and RHM can't even make the bench.
I imagine that would be the line from them, if FFP is such an issue just play more young players like QPR are doing currently so it will be completely self inflicted if we actually get deducted points for breaching in 12 months time.
-
Why should a club the size of the us be expected to bear the same losses as a club the size of QPR, whose ground is a tad bigger than the Holte End?
-
Is it legally enforceable for them to set the punishments for breaking the rules after the rules have been broken. As far as I'm aware the actual punishments are pretty hazy and more of a general threat but no specifics. A sliding scale of punishment for losses which may be 2/3years old which were accrued before the actual punishments were known... it sounds like a legal minefield to me. As much as I'd find it hilarious to see the Rags get a points deduction, the league couldn't even enforce their own transfer embargo.
-
The FFP rules are an absolute joke. The very clubs who created this like Man City and Chelsea have flouted the rules for years and haven't received a single point deduction. Even Bournemouth have broke the rules twice and just received fines only. The hounding of Championship clubs is totally unfair. FFP actually protects the top sides, ridiculous!
FFP has worked in the Championship as it was introduced to prevent the amount of clubs going into administration due to spending way more than their income. The problem was to apply the same regulations to the Premier League, where a different problem occurs.
Platini was keen to get FFP off the ground in order to prevent more Chelseas and Citehs - other European clubs do not want the sudden emergence of English teams via a massive injection of money way beyond their ‘normal’ revenue norms.
The problem for teams below the Prem is that FFP reduces the likelihood of the ‘white knight’ investor for clubs in financial dire straits. And, the Championship is a far easier place politically to impose strict rules than the Prem.
-
Opposition to FFP is something that should unite all EFL fans.
In the dim and distant past when I studied a bit of Law we learnt, as a general principle, that no Laws were made with retrospective effect. The very good principle behind this is that no-one should be punished for an action that was legal at the time it was carried out. It seems to me that this is precisely what the EFL are doing with their persistent after the event changing and tinkering with the, so called, FFP regulations. Also some would argue that the proposed restrictions and punishments amount to a restraint of trade.
But the real issue with so called FFP is that it will actually result in producing UNFAIR competition on the pitch. BCFC are already under a transfer embargo and bizarrely it seems the EFL can even dictate what wages the club can pay to free agents. Not to mention rumoured points deductions! Recent press reports suggest Villa could face similar sanctions if they don’t go up this year.
So Cardiff City, who are shit, will probably get relegated this season but why should they care? They’ll come down with their pockets stuffed with a £100+ millions parachute payment whilst Blues and Villa will have their hands tied behind their backs, unable to compete in the transfer market. It will be hugely frustrating if you have plenty of money but are prevented from spending it by an arbitrary, one size fits all FFP policy! (not that we’ve got any money)
In a very short period, probably no more than 5 years, the majority of Premier League clubs will be pretty much cemented permanently in place while a handful of clubs will yo yo between the Premier and the Championship.
It’s hard to say what can be done but unless it’s done very soon it will be too late and our game will be changed for ever. Maybe a one-day strike when as many fans as can be persuaded stay away from all Championship games. I know only a small proportion of club’s income comes from gate money but the big selling point about English football is the atmosphere generated by the fans. Also watch Strictly Come Dancing instead of EFL Championship on TV, that will piss off both the TV companies and their advertisers. And don’t just stay away go and see Solihull Moors, Pelsall Villa etc etc.
KRO
-
You're right about FFP. The thing is, they could with a bit of thought come up with a way of having that financial stability without making the leagues less competitive. It's hardly "Fair Play" when certain clubs can spend what they like. I get that they don't want lower league clubs going out of business, but that could be achieved by actually doing some proper due diligence on oweners, and putting in liquidity requirements. So, they introduce a rule where owners can spend what they like and predict a loss of say, £20m a year, but they have to put that amount in a bond, so that if they pull out, there's money there for the club to continue in existence.
-
Love how the noses all hate FFP now that it's bitten them in the arse with likelihood of a bumming from it as seconds some time soon after spending all summer fantasizing about it and it's imaginary effects on us.
-
Why should a club the size of the us be expected to bear the same losses as a club the size of QPR, whose ground is a tad bigger than the Holte End?
You're talking about revenue there. Think of it another way, FFP allows you to spend your revenue plus the allowable losses. If your revenue is higher, you can spend more. Hence why it favours the already wealthy clubs.
-
My biggest issue with points deductions as a punishment is that, for me, they run against the supposed purpose of FFP. If we take it that the idea is to stop clubs going to the wall then how would potentially relegating a club over mistakes made 2-3 years earlier help them? The drop in income from championship to league 1 isn't on the same scale as dropping from the premier league but it's still a significant drop. For a club that has been expecting to finish midtable that's a big hit.
Move on to Villa how does denying us promotion (if we get there) because we overspent after our relegation prove anything? I'm all for there being rules but this one doesn't promote fairness. I'd go with something like every penny over the limit you go you have to put the same into a lottery style fund which is used to develop training facilities, provide training for coaches, etc at the smaller clubs giving them a chance of bringing through more quality themselves and naturally improving (and thus raising standards across the league). The message then becomes that if you want to 'buy' the title you can but you have to contribute back into the league for doing it. It doesn't stop clubs doing what Leicester, Bournemouth and QPR have done but it gives them a big end of season bill to pay and it helps keep the depth of the leagues in place.
There's probably plenty of problems with this, it's practically a 'back of a fag packet' solution but it does much more to address the problems in the game than points deductions.
-
I'm convinced that Jack's release clause is an integral part of us getting around FFP. Because, in essence, we have increased one particular asset's value from £35m to £60m – the equivalent of an extra £25m income. I'm sure someone who knows more about accounting regulations will be along shortly to burst that bubble.
-
I'm convinced that Jack's release clause is an integral part of us getting around FFP. Because, in essence, we have increased one particular asset's value from £35m to £60m – the equivalent of an extra £25m income. I'm sure someone who knows more about accounting regulations will be along shortly to burst that bubble.
Nope. ignoring that your quoted prices are crazy, I think FFP is based on actual revenue not book values.
-
I'm convinced that Jack's release clause is an integral part of us getting around FFP. Because, in essence, we have increased one particular asset's value from £35m to £60m – the equivalent of an extra £25m income. I'm sure someone who knows more about accounting regulations will be along shortly to burst that bubble.
Nope. ignoring that your quoted prices are crazy, I think FFP is based on actual revenue not book values.
It's both signings are all about their book value. The issue is a release clause is no guarantee of anything so Grealish has no book value.
-
Players you buy from another club - the purchase price goes into the accounts, and is then amortised over the length of the contract. A £10m signing on a four year contract will be worth £5m after two years. If you then sell him for £12m, you'd make a £7m profit. If he leaves on a free transfer, it's a £5m loss.
Youth team players - there's never any value in the accounts, even if they sign a new contract or have a release clause. You only make a profit when you sell them, so at any point, whatever you sell them for, eg if it's Jack for £30m, then £30m is the profit. If there's a release clause, the profit is only realised if a club matches that valuation and pays that for him.
-
Players you buy from another club - the purchase price goes into the accounts, and is then amortised over the length of the contract. A £10m signing on a four year contract will be worth £5m after two years. If you then sell him for £12m, you'd make a £7m profit. If he leaves on a free transfer, it's a £5m loss.
Youth team players - there's never any value in the accounts, even if they sign a new contract or have a release clause. You only make a profit when you sell them, so at any point, whatever you sell them for, eg if it's Jack for £30m, then £30m is the profit. If there's a release clause, the profit is only realised if a club matches that valuation and pays that for him.
Which shows why the system is shit. Teams have to sell their prized assets to stay afloat, rather than growing them and growing a team.
It's plain to see that Grealish is worth so much more than nothing.
-
I'm convinced that Jack's release clause is an integral part of us getting around FFP. Because, in essence, we have increased one particular asset's value from £35m to £60m – the equivalent of an extra £25m income. I'm sure someone who knows more about accounting regulations will be along shortly to burst that bubble.
Nope. ignoring that your quoted prices are crazy, I think FFP is based on actual revenue not book values.
If it were that easy to get round FFP, we could just revalue Richards at £10m, Hutton at £30m and Mcginniesta at £100m
-
It's plain to see that Grealish is worth so much more than nothing.
Accounting rules for footballers have nothing to do with reflecting their "value" as it's such a subjective matter. Instead all you do is spread the cost of their registration over the length of their contact. Hence why youth team players carry no value on the balance sheet, as their was no cost in their registration.
-
All clubs don't have to, just the ones that have been run badly. Like us.
While the FFP system isn't perfect, it's better than no FFP. From 2008-2013, 20 clubs from the Conference North/South level upwards went into administration, 12 were league clubs, since 2013 I don't think any have.
-
Thing is, we're all moaning about FFP in the championship but if they had bought it in for the premiership wouldn't we have been in the shit earlier. I seem to remember us making an 80m loss somewhere along the line. wouldn't we have had a points deduction anyway?
-
I don't think so because I believe a huge amount of that was related to the sale of the club and a conversion of loans to equity.
-
Calling H & V accountants. Christian Purslow appears to have unequivocally stated that we are fine by FFP regs. Can I now stop worrying or is this double speak?
-
Calling H & V accountants. Christian Purslow appears to have unequivocally stated that we are fine by FFP regs. Can I now stop worrying or is this double speak?
He's lost me. I don't know the details of the FFP regs but unless there is something in there about changes in ownership I don't see how we won't be massively over the allowable loss limit by the end of this season.
-
I always thought there was latitude for a change of ownership. Great to finally move forward after the doom and gloom of the summer.
-
Calling H & V accountants. Christian Purslow appears to have unequivocally stated that we are fine by FFP regs. Can I now stop worrying or is this double speak?
He's lost me. I don't know the details of the FFP regs but unless there is something in there about changes in ownership I don't see how we won't be massively over the allowable loss limit by the end of this season.
That's the only way I see it but surely the journos would of reported all that when the new owners bought us. So we were in the shit under Xia, new owners buy us, wipe all debts and FFP disappears?
-
When Xia bought the club there was an issue over if he had the necessary funds. At some point someone in the FA hierarchy saw a bank balance and said "ok"
Although not fully up to speed with the nuances of FFP (who actually is?) I always was under the impression that it was to safe guard against teams busting themselves financially chasing the premiership dream. Surely one glance at our owners bank balance would result in possibly a limit on how much we could throw at it at this time but as far as going bust more likely a "That will do nicely Sir"
-
FFP shouldn't make big clubs the "great unwashed" - Chelsea chairman
Alan Baldwin- Reuters
3 MIN READ
LONDON (Reuters) - Financial fair play rules should not lump big clubs like Chelsea and Manchester City with the ranks of the “great unwashed”, Chelsea chairman Bruce Buck said on Thursday.
The American suggested inequality in soccer was not necessarily a bad thing and said the rules now denied other clubs the chance of one day rising like Chelsea to the top of the Premier League.
“I personally believe that for the development of football, marquee clubs and marquee players are important,” Buck told the Leaders Sport Business summit at Chelsea’s Stamford Bridge ground.
“I am not, as a general proposition, in favour of dumbing down the large clubs in order to make all clubs the great unwashed. They’ve done that in the U.S. over the last 20 years and I think it’s been to the detriment, particularly of baseball.
“MLS (Major League Soccer) started with that model of competitive balance...and I just don’t think it works for the long term.”
Buck said there were 10 or 12 big clubs in Europe at present and he expected those same ones to be at the top in five or 10 years time.
“The dream in England is, if you support a Conference team, that some day you’ll win the Premier League. Financial Fair Play has pluses and minuses, and one of the minuses is that dream is now over.
“What Chelsea did in 2003, what Man City did five years later, that’s virtually impossible to do under financial fair play,” he added.
Chelsea had won only one English league top tier title, in 1954-55, until Russian billionaire Roman Abramovich bought the club in 2003. They have since won five Premier League championships.
Champions Manchester City, now level on points with Chelsea and Liverpool at the top, had not won the league title since 1968 when they were taken over in 2008 by Abu Dhabi United Group.
The following year they spent more in the transfer market than any other English club and have since won three Premier League titles.
Buck said clubs had to find their “natural position” in the football hierarchy, while also seeking to improve.
With the exception of Leicester City in 2016 and Blackburn Rovers in 1995, Manchester United, Chelsea, Manchester City and Arsenal have won every Premier League title since the 1992-93 season.
“I don’t think we should assume that because every club is not equal, that therefore it’s bad,” Buck said.
European soccer’s governing body UEFA introduced a Financial Fair Play break-even rule in 2011 to stop clubs spending beyond their generated revenue.
The policy is designed to prevent rich owners from trying to buy success and distort the transfer market.
Teams can be thrown out of European competition for breaching the rules but UEFA has generally negotiated settlements with offending clubs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's all you need to know about FFP for the big clubs isn't it? What an utter twat.
-
Wanker
-
FFP shouldn't make big clubs the "great unwashed" - Chelsea chairman
Alan Baldwin- Reuters
3 MIN READ
LONDON (Reuters) - Financial fair play rules should not lump big clubs like Chelsea and Manchester City with the ranks of the “great unwashed”, Chelsea chairman Bruce Buck said on Thursday.
The American suggested inequality in soccer was not necessarily a bad thing and said the rules now denied other clubs the chance of one day rising like Chelsea to the top of the Premier League.
“I personally believe that for the development of football, marquee clubs and marquee players are important,” Buck told the Leaders Sport Business summit at Chelsea’s Stamford Bridge ground.
“I am not, as a general proposition, in favour of dumbing down the large clubs in order to make all clubs the great unwashed. They’ve done that in the U.S. over the last 20 years and I think it’s been to the detriment, particularly of baseball.
“MLS (Major League Soccer) started with that model of competitive balance...and I just don’t think it works for the long term.”
Buck said there were 10 or 12 big clubs in Europe at present and he expected those same ones to be at the top in five or 10 years time.
“The dream in England is, if you support a Conference team, that some day you’ll win the Premier League. Financial Fair Play has pluses and minuses, and one of the minuses is that dream is now over.
“What Chelsea did in 2003, what Man City did five years later, that’s virtually impossible to do under financial fair play,” he added.
Chelsea had won only one English league top tier title, in 1954-55, until Russian billionaire Roman Abramovich bought the club in 2003. They have since won five Premier League championships.
Champions Manchester City, now level on points with Chelsea and Liverpool at the top, had not won the league title since 1968 when they were taken over in 2008 by Abu Dhabi United Group.
The following year they spent more in the transfer market than any other English club and have since won three Premier League titles.
Buck said clubs had to find their “natural position” in the football hierarchy, while also seeking to improve.
With the exception of Leicester City in 2016 and Blackburn Rovers in 1995, Manchester United, Chelsea, Manchester City and Arsenal have won every Premier League title since the 1992-93 season.
“I don’t think we should assume that because every club is not equal, that therefore it’s bad,” Buck said.
European soccer’s governing body UEFA introduced a Financial Fair Play break-even rule in 2011 to stop clubs spending beyond their generated revenue.
The policy is designed to prevent rich owners from trying to buy success and distort the transfer market.
Teams can be thrown out of European competition for breaching the rules but UEFA has generally negotiated settlements with offending clubs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's all you need to know about FFP for the big clubs isn't it? What an utter twat.
I don't think the headline actually reflects what he's saying though.....he's basically saying what we all are , which is that if you have rich owners then it should be ok for them to use those funds to make the club better and FFP trying to create a level playing field is what means that the same handful of clubs (which have already become big, in 2 cases directly through investment before FFP came in) will dominate the league now. What he says in that article is pretty much exactly what we say about Villa now isn't it?
-
Didn't Purslow also say he was on the committee that devised FFP? If so, surely he will know it like the back of his hand and can navigate round it just fine?
-
Didn't Purslow also say he was on the committee that devised FFP? If so, surely he will know it like the back of his hand and can navigate round it just fine?
He did. But I still think the way he said ‘buy and sell players in January’ the plan is still to fund with the sale of Grealish or some other assets
-
How can the club possibly ‘plan’ based on the sale of Grealish, that just makes no sense whatsoever and makes all kinds of assumptions about, fitness, injury, form and most importantly, someone willing to pay the release clause.
-
How can the club possibly ‘plan’ based on the sale of Grealish, that just makes no sense whatsoever and makes all kinds of assumptions about, fitness, injury, form and most importantly, someone willing to pay the release clause.
I agree, I think that's highly unlikely. I think he was just talking about backing Smith to get rid of people he doesn't want, even with the mess of the defence it's still the case that our squad is a bit too big which makes it hard to get the young players involved, I suspect that will be addressed over the next 2-3 windows, especially with there being a fair few contracts coming to an end next summer.
-
How can the club possibly ‘plan’ based on the sale of Grealish, that just makes no sense whatsoever and makes all kinds of assumptions about, fitness, injury, form and most importantly, someone willing to pay the release clause.
If we want to sell Grealish, we can sell him for whatever fee (below the release clause fee) we want. If we do not want to sell him, a club can only buy him if they meet the release clause fee.
-
If the likes of Citeh and Chelski can drive a coach and Horses through it so can anyone else - oh sorry they can`t...
-
Calling H & V accountants. Christian Purslow appears to have unequivocally stated that we are fine by FFP regs. Can I now stop worrying or is this double speak?
You would think that he knows the FFP rules inside out and as you say he seemed totally unconcerned about it possibly holding us back. Although I suppose ultimately only time will tell. Our in and out transfer dealings in January should tell us more.
-
I would imagine that the sight of our owners lawyers walking into the FA offices might put a dampener on any action they may want to take against us
-
He said the debts are cleared and categorically stages we would respect the FFP rules. Players will no doubt be sold but there’s clearly some resources beyond that to help Dean in January.
-
Guess it depends on how much we’ll be spending...I’m guessing we’ll bring in loans, cheaper players identified by Deano and Mendes rather than shopping in the £10m+ market.
-
I think Dean will make saleable assets out of players Bruce refused to use.
-
I wonder is there a "gentleman's agreement" with Brentford that we not come after their bright lights in January, though I'm not sure how common that kind of thing is.
-
I wonder is there a "gentleman's agreement" with Brentford that we not come after their bright lights in January, though I'm not sure how common that kind of thing is.
With the Brentford model, more likely they'd make an agreement that we had to!
-
He said the debts are cleared and categorically stages we would respect the FFP rules. Players will no doubt be sold but there’s clearly some resources beyond that to help Dean in January.
By not having to pay interest on the loans we can probably afford at least an extra loan player.
If we keep selling out home games that will also provide an extra income to spend.
-
I really don't understand how we can be ok
Its a profit and loss test. We cant retrospectively change historic losses. And I thought we were right up against the limit such that we needed to break even this year, despite a) losing £5m per month and b) losing our parachute payments
Id like a clearer explanation having bought the plan B bollocks last year
-
Whatever happens I imagine being very serious about compliance gets you a lot more discretion, as it is discretionary, than going fuck it, I'll do what I want.
-
Whatever happens I imagine being very serious about compliance gets you a lot more discretion, as it is discretionary, than going fuck it, I'll do what I want.
I can't imagine that us saying all the right things publicly while absolutely blitzing the spend limits will be much of a defence.
-
Maybe Jacks new contract and sell on clause has helped.
-
No I agree, but I don't think we have. Snoddy and Terry were £110k a week in wages. I would imagine that the signings we've made are covered by that. I highly doubt we've made Bolasie our hughest paid player ever, especially when Boro agreed the same package with Everton.
-
Maybe Jacks new contract and sell on clause has helped.
How so?
He’d presumably be on more money than on his previous contract and the sell on fee can’t help until it’s realised?
-
What I cannot understand with FFP is the ignoring of a new owner coming in and wiping away the debt. In effect the losses built up by the previous owner have been wiped off, providing it is capital investment. The protection of FFP rules are therefore not required against the past. Going forward, they should then apply so as to protect the Club if the owner then leaves/runs into financial difficulties.
-
But wouldn't that just lead to rather unscrupulous owners "selling" a club to a trusted associate to wipe the debt out for FFP purposes? There are many ways to look as though its a "transaction at arms length" when in fact it is nothing of the sort.
just wondering
-
Their is also the ‘fair play’ element. In addition to protecting clubs they are in theory trying to create a more level playing field and wiping the slate clean at each change of ownership would hardly do that.
-
The "fair play" element isn't really that though is it? As far as i can see it is the epitome of the ladder being pulled up by the premier league and then the magic circle within the premier league by the "Sky Six".
Take Chelsea, a team with a capacity smaller than us [41,400] but
2016 Total Revenue £335m
of which
Commercial revenue £122m
Broadcasting revenue £143m
Matchday revenue: £70m
Outgoings
Wage Bill £224m
Net Total Debt £1.14bn owed to Abramovich
Chelsea posted a loss of £85 million in 2016 up from 32 Million the year before
where's the "fair play" in this?
-
The "fair play" element isn't really that though is it? As far as i can see it is the epitome of the ladder being pulled up by the premier league and then the magic circle within the premier league by the "Sky Six".
Take Chelsea, a team with a capacity smaller than us [41,400] but
2016 Total Revenue £335m
of which
Commercial revenue £122m
Broadcasting revenue £143m
Matchday revenue: £70m
Outgoings
Wage Bill £224m
Net Total Debt £1.14bn owed to Abramovich
Chelsea posted a loss of £85 million in 2016 up from 32 Million the year before
where's the "fair play" in this?
That's why they've renamed it - but I would suggest the fair play would be when Abramovich gets bored things might not be so rosy in the garden.
-
Oh I agree. The ****** just pulled up the drawbridge. But I suspect it is the notion of fair play that will stop the slate being wiped with every sale.
-
Oh I agree. The c***s just pulled up the drawbridge. But I suspect it is the notion of fair play that will stop the slate being wiped with every sale.
I totally agree with the 'pulling up the drawbridge' analogy. If you had a filthy rich owner/owners who wanted to spunk hundreds of millions a few years back it was fine but now it isn't. Allowing Chelsea to stockpile lots of players they can loan out for loan fees (sorry I meant 'experience') and then sell on for a profit and allowing Man City to do the same (albeit to a lesser extent) and also buy feeder clubs in other countries.
-
Has he pulled up the drawbridge or is he just not allowed to stay in the country very long anymore
-
Maybe Jacks new contract and sell on clause has helped.
How so?
He’d presumably be on more money than on his previous contract and the sell on fee can’t help until it’s realised?
If an asset goes up in value you can take the excess value as a profit in that accounting period, so the justification is a new contract and sell on clause,I am not sure that it is valid under FFP.
-
In a way, I can understand the PL not want another Man City situation as this could financially destabilise the teams at the top as it would up the spending by the existing clubs to compete with the new 'rich' club. If this happened, the whole bubble could burst.
If a club gets into difficulties financially, the league should be encouraging anything that gets them out of it for the long term. The obvious one is capital investment to put the club on an even keel so that they can work within the financial guidelines in the future. It would appear that FFP is preventing this.
-
A release clause has no bearing on FFP.
-
Welease Wichards! That would be financial fair play.
-
Maybe Jacks new contract and sell on clause has helped.
How so?
He’d presumably be on more money than on his previous contract and the sell on fee can’t help until it’s realised?
If an asset goes up in value you can take the excess value as a profit in that accounting period, so the justification is a new contract and sell on clause,I am not sure that it is valid under FFP.
OK, so firstly accounting standards make no attempt to "fair value" footballers - it's impossible to do so. They're accounted for at amortised cost.
Secondly, the only time you take asset value appreciation in to the income statement is when it's an investment property or you're reversing a previous downward revaluation recognised through the income statement.
And thirdly, a sell on clause has no bearing on a players value in any case. It's a term in a contract which is unlikely to ever get triggered. If it did, would that mean players who didn't have a release clause would be worth nothing?!
-
Reaching the vinegar strokes now, just need someone to mention Spurs wage bill and I'm going to climax.
-
Reaching the vinegar strokes now, just need someone to mention Spurs wage bill and I'm going to climax.
You dirty Dawg!
-
What's to stop the owners buying a club elsewhere and then loaning/selling those players to Villa on the cheap?
-
What's to stop the owners buying a club elsewhere and then loaning/selling those players to Villa on the cheap?
They could buy Small Heath - loan them Richards and insist he plays in every game.
-
Maybe Jacks new contract and sell on clause has helped.
How so?
He’d presumably be on more money than on his previous contract and the sell on fee can’t help until it’s realised?
If an asset goes up in value you can take the excess value as a profit in that accounting period, so the justification is a new contract and sell on clause,I am not sure that it is valid under FFP.
OK, so firstly accounting standards make no attempt to "fair value" footballers - it's impossible to do so. They're accounted for at amortised cost.
Secondly, the only time you take asset value appreciation in to the income statement is when it's an investment property or you're reversing a previous downward revaluation recognised through the income statement.
And thirdly, a sell on clause has no bearing on a players value in any case. It's a term in a contract which is unlikely to ever get triggered. If it did, would that mean players who didn't have a release clause would be worth nothing?!
I don't know anything about accounting but what I find interesting is that the confirmation statement in May listed our share value as £84m but last week there was a statement of capital which put us closer to £186m. What difference does that make and how is that additional value generated? I'd guess part of it is conversion of debt to equity but does anyone know what impact this would have on FFP?
-
Maybe Jacks new contract and sell on clause has helped.
How so?
He’d presumably be on more money than on his previous contract and the sell on fee can’t help until it’s realised?
If an asset goes up in value you can take the excess value as a profit in that accounting period, so the justification is a new contract and sell on clause,I am not sure that it is valid under FFP.
OK, so firstly accounting standards make no attempt to "fair value" footballers - it's impossible to do so. They're accounted for at amortised cost.
Secondly, the only time you take asset value appreciation in to the income statement is when it's an investment property or you're reversing a previous downward revaluation recognised through the income statement.
And thirdly, a sell on clause has no bearing on a players value in any case. It's a term in a contract which is unlikely to ever get triggered. If it did, would that mean players who didn't have a release clause would be worth nothing?!
I don't know anything about accounting but what I find interesting is that the confirmation statement in May listed our share value as £84m but last week there was a statement of capital which put us closer to £186m. What difference does that make and how is that additional value generated? I'd guess part of it is conversion of debt to equity but does anyone know what impact this would have on FFP?
Debt written off an converted to equity.
You can finance a company by putting your own money in and creating shares or equity or by borrowing someone else’s and putting that in as debt.
Lerner and Xia lent the money the club. So Xia paid Lerner around £84m which was the equity and then lent the club another £100m.
When the new owners came in they effectively cancelled or the debt for equity.
I think - an accountant may explain it better.
-
I don't know anything about accounting but what I find interesting is that the confirmation statement in May listed our share value as £84m but last week there was a statement of capital which put us closer to £186m. What difference does that make and how is that additional value generated? I'd guess part of it is conversion of debt to equity but does anyone know what impact this would have on FFP?
Debt written off an converted to equity.
You can finance a company by putting your own money in and creating shares or equity or by borrowing someone else’s and putting that in as debt.
Lerner and Xia lent the money the club. So Xia paid Lerner around £84m which was the equity and then lent the club another £100m.
When the new owners came in they effectively cancelled or the debt for equity.
I think - an accountant may explain it better.
Yeah, I get all of that but how much of the difference is a debt conversion and what other changes would cause this? If, for example, we revalued BMH based on the valuation used in the HS2 buyout, would that justify an increase in share value and if so would that increase in asset value cancel out some the 'book debt' that is against us for FFP?
What I'm really getting at is what actions that lead to a share value increase would help with FFP and what actions wouldn't? I'd assume that debt conversion makes no difference because the asset value of the club hasn't changed and we know that perceived value of players is irrelevant but fixed asset value surely helps.
-
FFP is a profit measure. So anything balance sheet related (assets, liabilities and equity) are irrelevant unless they drive income or expenditure in the last 3 financial years.
It wouldn't work if it was a balance sheet measure as in that case, the richest bloke wins - nothing therefore stopping another Chelsea or Man City. But by making it a profit measure and thereby linking it to revenue, the drawbridge is pulled up firmly to stop any of those pesky "small" clubs breaking the dominance of the (current) "big" clubs.
-
I don't know anything about accounting but what I find interesting is that the confirmation statement in May listed our share value as £84m but last week there was a statement of capital which put us closer to £186m. What difference does that make and how is that additional value generated? I'd guess part of it is conversion of debt to equity but does anyone know what impact this would have on FFP?
Debt written off an converted to equity.
You can finance a company by putting your own money in and creating shares or equity or by borrowing someone else’s and putting that in as debt.
Lerner and Xia lent the money the club. So Xia paid Lerner around £84m which was the equity and then lent the club another £100m.
When the new owners came in they effectively cancelled or the debt for equity.
I think - an accountant may explain it better.
Yeah, I get all of that but how much of the difference is a debt conversion and what other changes would cause this? If, for example, we revalued BMH based on the valuation used in the HS2 buyout, would that justify an increase in share value and if so would that increase in asset value cancel out some the 'book debt' that is against us for FFP?
What I'm really getting at is what actions that lead to a share value increase would help with FFP and what actions wouldn't? I'd assume that debt conversion makes no difference because the asset value of the club hasn't changed and we know that perceived value of players is irrelevant but fixed asset value surely helps.
The shares only have a nominal value of say £1 each usually linked to when the company was started.
So if someone starts a company with £1m they can have 1m shares of nominal value of £1
If the company is very successful the actual value of the shares can increase without the nominal value changing.
A really simple (and unrealistic!) example is to start a football club with £1m and then buy one player for 500k and agree to pay him 500k for a year.
At the end of the year sell the same player (because he’s don’t really well in this fictional one man team) fo £2m
Your now left with £2m in cash (as the original £1m was spent buying the player and paying his wages) but now have £2m from the buying club.
The nominal value of the shares is still £1 but the actual value is £2
I don’t know the ins and outs of FFP but I’m certain there is a lot in there to stop this.
All assets on a balance sheet depreciate or amortise over time.
-
All assets on a balance sheet depreciate or amortise over time.
At the risk of taking this off topic, no they don't.
The only assets that depreciate are Property, Plant & Equipment (Tangible Fixed Assets in the good ol' days) and the only assets that amortise are (some) Intangibles.
All other assets (investment properties, inventory/stock, trade debtors/receivables, cash, prepayments, accrued revenue/income, etc) don't.
-
Land isn’t depreciated either.
-
No I agree, but I don't think we have. Snoddy and Terry were £110k a week in wages. I would imagine that the signings we've made are covered by that. I highly doubt we've made Bolasie our hughest paid player ever, especially when Boro agreed the same package with Everton.
We are on for the full whack on Bolasie.
-
All assets on a balance sheet depreciate or amortise over time.
At the risk of taking this off topic, no they don't.
The only assets that depreciate are Property, Plant & Equipment (Tangible Fixed Assets in the good ol' days) and the only assets that amortise are (some) Intangibles.
All other assets (investment properties, inventory/stock, trade debtors/receivables, cash, prepayments, accrued revenue/income, etc) don't.
I’m no accountant!!
-
We are on for the full whack on Bolasie.
… which begs the question: why??
-
All assets on a balance sheet depreciate or amortise over time.
At the risk of taking this off topic, no they don't.
The only assets that depreciate are Property, Plant & Equipment (Tangible Fixed Assets in the good ol' days) and the only assets that amortise are (some) Intangibles.
All other assets (investment properties, inventory/stock, trade debtors/receivables, cash, prepayments, accrued revenue/income, etc) don't.
I’m no accountant!!
Evidently! ;)
-
We are on for the full whack on Bolasie.
… which begs the question: why??
One imagines Bruce.
-
It doesn't seem that unreasonable to me. He cost twenty odd million last season. You wouldn't expect to get him on the cheap.
-
You'd expect his parent club to chip in if we're paying them a loan fee as is normal.
-
You'd expect his parent club to chip in if we're paying them a loan fee as is normal.
Not when there are plenty of bidders. And we don't even know that there is a loan fee.
Agents are creative when it comes to generating revenue.
-
We don't know for certain we are paying 100% of his wages other than a couple of paper articles. The same papers that had Henry nailed on for the manager's role, twice!
-
Could the large chunks of land that we have reportedly purchased in Warwickshire be used in the calculations for FFP?
-
Doubt it, as it will likely be a fixed asset and so Balance-Sheet based. It's Income and Expenditure where we, apparently, need to show an improvement.
-
The best way of avoiding FFP issues is to make a profit. You can do that by ensuring commercial sponsorship is as good as rules allow.
Now if only we had an Owner who was also on the board of big sports brand like Adidas...
-
The best way of avoiding FFP issues is to make a profit. You can do that by ensuring commercial sponsorship is as good as rules allow.
Now if only we had an Owner who was also on the board of big sports brand like Adidas...
No need, we have a bloke called Luke!
-
The local media are reporting that the EFL will recommend to the disciplinary board that small heath will get a 12 point penalty for failing FFP. They seem to think they could get that down on appeal to something like 6 now and 6 suspended but, given they are on course to break it again next year, they will get those points off, and possibly more, next season.
Before we snigger, should we be worried? Any potential punishment for us would be next season as we haven't failed anything as yet. Also, a lot of the EFL's gripe with blues is that the brazenly signed a player under embargo and haven't done much to make money. Turning down £12m+ for Che Adams last week must have raised some questions.
Going up this season will dispel the worry once and for all but, if we don't, surely a deep dive into our accounts is coming?
The blues case is surely going to be the precedent and us, Forest and Bolton in particular should be watching quite closely.
-
I think we'd get an embargo before any points deduction. It seems we were quietly given one in the chaos of last summer and it was lifted once we got the new owners on.
-
FFP aint a thing. It's Profit & Sustainability.
Maybe one could argue, Billionnaire owners wiping all debt and placing £200 million into a clubs bank account for the sole and only use by that football would ensure that club is sustainable for the foreseeable future.
I'm not saying that has happened, but I think the rules aren't as cut & dried as some suggest on here.
I.e. those wierd equations we get on here where someone says we paid £3m for Joe Bloggs, paid him £40k a week for 6 years. If we sold him now for £2m it wouldn't make a difference to FFP so can't.
The only thing we all know for sure is, You MUST pay the tax man otherwise shit goes bad, fast.
-
FFP aint a thing. It's Profit & Sustainability.
Maybe one could argue, Billionnaire owners wiping all debt and placing £200 million into a clubs bank account for the sole and only use by that football would ensure that club is sustainable for the foreseeable future.
I'm not saying that has happened, but I think the rules aren't as cut & dried as some suggest on here.
I.e. those wierd equations we get on here where someone says we paid £3m for Joe Bloggs, paid him £40k a week for 6 years. If we sold him now for £2m it wouldn't make a difference to FFP so can't.
The only thing we all know for sure is, You MUST pay the tax man otherwise shit goes bad, fast.
Is a rules based protocol.
-
The Noses are going to get a points deduction because they stuck two fingers up to the EFL.
-
The local media are reporting that the EFL will recommend to the disciplinary board that small heath will get a 12 point penalty for failing FFP. They seem to think they could get that down on appeal to something like 6 now and 6 suspended but, given they are on course to break it again next year, they will get those points off, and possibly more, next season.
Before we snigger, should we be worried? Any potential punishment for us would be next season as we haven't failed anything as yet. Also, a lot of the EFL's gripe with blues is that the brazenly signed a player under embargo and haven't done much to make money. Turning down £12m+ for Che Adams last week must have raised some questions.
Going up this season will dispel the worry once and for all but, if we don't, surely a deep dive into our accounts is coming?
The blues case is surely going to be the precedent and us, Forest and Bolton in particular should be watching quite closely.
If Birmingham City signed a player when they were not allowed to, did the EFL allow the registration to go through ?
-
The local media are reporting that the EFL will recommend to the disciplinary board that small heath will get a 12 point penalty for failing FFP. They seem to think they could get that down on appeal to something like 6 now and 6 suspended but, given they are on course to break it again next year, they will get those points off, and possibly more, next season.
Before we snigger, should we be worried? Any potential punishment for us would be next season as we haven't failed anything as yet. Also, a lot of the EFL's gripe with blues is that the brazenly signed a player under embargo and haven't done much to make money. Turning down £12m+ for Che Adams last week must have raised some questions.
Going up this season will dispel the worry once and for all but, if we don't, surely a deep dive into our accounts is coming?
The blues case is surely going to be the precedent and us, Forest and Bolton in particular should be watching quite closely.
If Birmingham City signed a player when they were not allowed to, did the EFL allow the registration to go through ?
I think at the time the case was made it would be unfair to the player (Pedersen) to put him in limbo until January by not being allowed to play so transfer was reluctantly signed off with the EFL briefing to the media shaking their heads at the state of it all.
Seems certain now SHA will be deduced points which is good job as with Bolton at home tomorrow they'll likely only be a point or two off top 6 which can't be happening.
Them potentially finishing ahead of us after spending last two years scraping survival is bad enough.
-
It's the only way we're going to finish ahead of them the way we're both playing at the moment. They were even able to put out the deckchairs in Sheps Bush on Saturday for the second half - oh the humanity!
-
It's the only way we're going to finish ahead of them the way we're both playing at the moment. They were even able to put out the deckchairs in Sheps Bush on Saturday for the second half - oh the humanity!
I don't think winning thanks to a last-minute penalty save is putting the deckchairs out.
-
It's the only way we're going to finish ahead of them the way we're both playing at the moment. They were even able to put out the deckchairs in Sheps Bush on Saturday for the second half - oh the humanity!
I don't think winning thanks to a last-minute penalty save is putting the deckchairs out.
You could argue that they got complacent at 4-0 up and took their foot off the gas. But as we showed against Sheffield United one side gaining momentum in a game and the other losing all momentum changes the game a lot.
-
I'm not going to start gloating if/when they get a points deduction certainly not after our own troubles last summer. And perhaps this summer coming for all i know.
-
To be fair, Monk has done a brilliant job for them with a squad that wasn't his...…. shame DS has not been able to do the same
-
Yes I hate them as much as the next person but, quite frankly, (albeit with 11 or so regular settled players) Monk and they have done unbelievably well. Which again proves the point that you don't have to sign a load of start thrown together to make progress in this league.
-
Slightly off-topic, but I wonder if Dean Smith could get a tune out of Gary Gardner as Monk seems to have done with him so far this season?
-
To be fair, Monk has done a brilliant job for them with a squad that wasn't his...…. shame DS has not been able to do the same
You have tarnished a reasonable post about Monk with your unreasonable sledge on Smith.
And don’t forget they nearly threw away a 4 goal lead.
-
Slightly off-topic, but I wonder if Dean Smith could get a tune out of Gary Gardner as Monk seems to have done with him so far this season?
We’ll never know, he’s out of contract in the Summer.
-
I'd rather not find out.
-
Monk's done a great job there to be totally fair and I thought he got the tin tack too early from trigger happy Leeds.
-
Slightly off-topic, but I wonder if Dean Smith could get a tune out of Gary Gardner as Monk seems to have done with him so far this season?
He needs to get a tune out of the players he's got first.
-
Monk's done a great job there to be totally fair and I thought he got the tin tack too early from trigger happy Leeds.
Said no Leeds fan ever.
-
I don't give a shiny shite what Leeds fans think, in my opinion he did a good job as he is as Birmingham.
-
Guys with this amount of money do not leave anything to chance. If there was a whiff of issues relating to FFP then they very quickly made their first appointment not only a very experienced CEO but a guy who helped write the FFP rules.
His first statement was along the lines of "clean slate" & "No issues with FFP"
They must know things we dont
-
We are getting good gates and have a rake of players out of contract in the summer. I reckon we will pull off a nice couple of sponsorship deals in the summer too.
-
Slightly off-topic, but I wonder if Dean Smith could get a tune out of Gary Gardner as Monk seems to have done with him so far this season?
We’ll never know, he’s out of contract in the Summer.
Didn't he sign a four year deal in 2016?
Would be surprised if he was out of contract, surely we'd have sold him full time in January for a small fee and to get him off the books earlier.
He's clearly a good enough player at championship level even if he can never show it for us.
-
Monk's done a great job there to be totally fair and I thought he got the tin tack too early from trigger happy Leeds.
Said no Leeds fan ever.
He actually walked out on Leeds, they were happy to keep him on.
Boro was the club where he was arguably sacked prematurely.
Soon SHA are back to appointments like Zola and Cotterill the better.
-
It's also important to remember that come the summer the RDM and Bruce first window spending is all off the books, along with a fuck load of wages.
The embargo that was supposedly in palce in the summer was, as I understand it, about money in the bank more than anything else.
-
Must admit that not once this season have I thought "what we need is Gary Gardner in the team".
-
Adidas Villa FC
-
Must admit that not once this season have I thought "what we need is Gary Gardner in the team".
We really need another ponderous, plodding midfielder to slow things down. That's the trouble with our midfield, too much pace.
-
Dunno...he'd be an upgrade on Jedinak and better off the ball than Hologram.
-
We'd have to play like the Noses though and they're utter filth to watch with their 7% possession and long ball biffing.
-
Dunno...he'd be an upgrade on Jedinak and better off the ball than Hologram.
That’s true, so why didn’t Dean recall him?
-
I'd say because Gary Gardner is shit. And we have enough shit and slow and weak midfielders as it is.
-
I don't really want to see Gardner in our team ,i just hate loaning one of our players to a club who loathe us .Other than the Villa match i think he has only missed one game for the noses,so he must be doing ok
-
Because we didn't have a recall option. No one cared when he went out on loan and his stats this season are crap.
-
Must admit that not once this season have I thought "what we need is Gary Gardner in the team".
“The missing link is Gary Gardner”
Said nobody ever
-
Must admit that not once this season have I thought "what we need is Gary Gardner in the team".
“The missing link is Gary Gardner”
Said nobody ever
However plenty have wondered if his brother is THE missing link.
-
Ironic really as his brother looks like the missing link.
-
Bollocks, too slow.
-
Craig Gardner is the pissing link.
-
Dunno...he'd be an upgrade on Jedinak and better off the ball than Hologram.
Saying he'd be better than Jedinak is the very epitomy of damning someone with faint praise. For all his faults, Hot Lips still contributes a reasonable number of assists and goals. He's not the long-term answer, but he's certainly far closer to it than Gardner, who contributes fuck all.
-
All I'm saying is that Gardner has been getting decent reviews in a team far shorter on quality than us but which works a lot harder, where players know their jobs and that seems to be one of the big problems with us at the moment.
-
Lots of players get decent reviews elsewhere. Jedinak, Whelan and Hot Lips were all loved by their former clubs. In terms of performances for Villa, though, Gardner has had far fewer reasonable ones. He also lacks in the area in which we suffer most... pace. I'd rather he wasn't helping out those twats, but I'm still glad he doesn't play for us. And his brother's a twat. And his other brother is a chav.
-
They're all chavs. The whole jolly well lot.
-
you can't go round saying he's a chav nowadays surely? A cnunt possibly but not a chav.
-
He plays for Small Heath, the majority of their players and fans are chavs.
-
He plays for Small Heath, the majority of their players and fans are chavs.
I'd imagine that lot see being called a chav as a badge of honour.
-
So far this season we've had Pedersen on video 'im gonna fuck Grealish up', Gary Monk holding up a 'sotv' banner, and the other day on twitter I saw their fans boasting about how they hadn't been allowed the lower tier at QPR because of what they'd done their previously.
-
****** it is then
-
Dunno...he'd be an upgrade on Jedinak and better off the ball than Hologram.
Saying he'd be better than Jedinak is the very epitomy of damning someone with faint praise. For all his faults, Hot Lips still contributes a reasonable number of assists and goals. He's not the long-term answer, but he's certainly far closer to it than Gardner, who contributes fuck all.
The same old argument. Hourihane takes every free kick, every corner. I'm surprised he doesn't take all the goal kicks and thrown ins too. He scores the odd goal, granted, but he only creates assists because he takes all the dead ball situations. Give all the dead ball situations to Taylor and no doubts he'd be talked up as the assist king. Not having a pop at you but Hourihane is a shadow and talked up far too much in my view.
-
Lots of players take all the set pieces for their clubs, not many are as good at it as him though which is why he's joint 3rd for assists in the league. He's a limited player but he gets so many assists because he's very good at that part of his job.
-
Lots of players take all the set pieces for their clubs, not many are as good at it as him though which is why he's joint 3rd for assists in the league. He's a limited player but he gets so many assists because he's very good at that part of his job.
Do all the others offer so little else?
-
Which wasn't the point.
-
Lots of players take all the set pieces for their clubs, not many are as good at it as him though which is why he's joint 3rd for assists in the league. He's a limited player but he gets so many assists because he's very good at that part of his job.
Exactly. Also, of the 13 goals and assists he's contributed this season, only 8 of them have come from set pieces, so he's not exactly a one-trick pony.
-
I don't see how anyone can doubt his productivity. All you need to do is compare his stats to others. Other team have midfielders who take set pieces too! Seems fricking obvious to me
It's more that his influence on the game outside of that is so poor
-
The stat that says since we built the midfield around him we have have won 2 in 12.
-
Guys with this amount of money do not leave anything to chance. If there was a whiff of issues relating to FFP then they very quickly made their first appointment not only a very experienced CEO but a guy who helped write the FFP rules.
His first statement was along the lines of "clean slate" & "No issues with FFP"
They must know things we dont
Haha sounds like a brown envelope job to me
-
How devasting would it be to be clobbered by FFP and still be absolutely shit.
-
I don't think we will be.
Everything about the Noses 12 point penalty seems to me to be brought about by their aggravation of their rule breaking, by not only violating them, but putting their fingers in their ears to the EFL's plan.
We are losing Whelan, Elmo, Elphick, Jedinak and Hutton as a matter of course. I wouls imagine thats anywhere between £7-8m in wages.
-
I don't think we will be.
Everything about the Noses 12 point penalty seems to me to be brought about by their aggravation of their rule breaking, by not only violating them, but putting their fingers in their ears to the EFL's plan.
We are losing Whelan, Elmo, Elphick, Jedinak and Hutton as a matter of course. I wouls imagine thats anywhere between £7-8m in wages.
And Big Micah 8)
-
I don't think we will be.
Everything about the Noses 12 point penalty seems to me to be brought about by their aggravation of their rule breaking, by not only violating them, but putting their fingers in their ears to the EFL's plan.
We are losing Whelan, Elmo, Elphick, Jedinak and Hutton as a matter of course. I wouls imagine thats anywhere between £7-8m in wages.
Sadly that’s not correct. Our very clear problem is far exceeding the maximum permitted losses of £39m in 3 seasons, being 2016/7, 2017/8 and now 2018/9. We have done nowhere near enough to slash the wage bill and sell players over the past 12 months and have effectively stuck two fingers up to the EFL.
Maybe we gambled on going up this season (which wouldn’t have saved us as the PL and EFL have now committed to enforce each other’s sanctions). Maybe the club has relied on new owners wiping the FFP slate clean (no, that doesn’t work otherwise a sale of a club would always be a get-our for reckless behavior). Maybe the board gambled on selling Grealish in January (which his injury scuppered and selling anyone in the summer won’t work because it’s our accounts to 31/5/19 which count, and the window doesn’t open till 1st July. Maybe Purslow thinks selling the training ground for an inflated price will wipe out the FFP losses before 31 May (the EFL will be all over the value attributed to any such sale to ensure that it is a fully arms length price).
I’ve been astonished at our transfer activity (or lack of sales) in the past 12 months. I’ve been even more astonished at our signings of loan players on high wages. We’ve done nothing to try to comply with the very clear FFP problem.
Rocky waters ahead, but there are few similarities with Blues’ position.
-
How devasting would it be to be clobbered by FFP and still be absolutely shit.
Yes I agree with this. At least the kids may get a chance.
We are still lumbered with Hogan, Lansbury, Kodjia etc what exactly are they contributing for the amount we are paying them?
Ross McCormack still has a year or so on his deal I think?? ::) He gets 2.3 million a year...
Once again I dont believe Aston Villa in terms of this FFP as Captain Sensible writes above. The numbers dont add up folks.
-
I don't think we will be.
Everything about the Noses 12 point penalty seems to me to be brought about by their aggravation of their rule breaking, by not only violating them, but putting their fingers in their ears to the EFL's plan.
We are losing Whelan, Elmo, Elphick, Jedinak and Hutton as a matter of course. I wouls imagine thats anywhere between £7-8m in wages.
Sadly that’s not correct. Our very clear problem is far exceeding the maximum permitted losses of £39m in 3 seasons, being 2016/7, 2017/8 and now 2018/9. We have done nowhere near enough to slash the wage bill and sell players over the past 12 months and have effectively stuck two fingers up to the EFL.
Maybe we gambled on going up this season (which wouldn’t have saved us as the PL and EFL have now committed to enforce each other’s sanctions). Maybe the club has relied on new owners wiping the FFP slate clean (no, that doesn’t work otherwise a sale of a club would always be a get-our for reckless behavior). Maybe the board gambled on selling Grealish in January (which his injury scuppered and selling anyone in the summer won’t work because it’s our accounts to 31/5/19 which count, and the window doesn’t open till 1st July. Maybe Purslow thinks selling the training ground for an inflated price will wipe out the FFP losses before 31 May (the EFL will be all over the value attributed to any such sale to ensure that it is a fully arms length price).
I’ve been astonished at our transfer activity (or lack of sales) in the past 12 months. I’ve been even more astonished at our signings of loan players on high wages. We’ve done nothing to try to comply with the very clear FFP problem.
Rocky waters ahead, but there are few similarities with Blues’ position.
My point was I don't think the Noses would have received a recommendation for 12 points deducted, but for promising new sources of income, which didn't materialise and then deciding to sign players while embargoed.
Our wage bill dramatically reduce plus we have saleable assets if needs be.
-
Agreed. Simply failing the financial loss threshold is punishable by a fine as has been the case in the past. The EFL are looking to throw the book at the noses by, amongst other things, signing a player under embargo.
-
I don't think we will be.
Everything about the Noses 12 point penalty seems to me to be brought about by their aggravation of their rule breaking, by not only violating them, but putting their fingers in their ears to the EFL's plan.
We are losing Whelan, Elmo, Elphick, Jedinak and Hutton as a matter of course. I wouls imagine thats anywhere between £7-8m in wages.
Sadly that’s not correct. Our very clear problem is far exceeding the maximum permitted losses of £39m in 3 seasons, being 2016/7, 2017/8 and now 2018/9. We have done nowhere near enough to slash the wage bill and sell players over the past 12 months and have effectively stuck two fingers up to the EFL.
Maybe we gambled on going up this season (which wouldn’t have saved us as the PL and EFL have now committed to enforce each other’s sanctions). Maybe the club has relied on new owners wiping the FFP slate clean (no, that doesn’t work otherwise a sale of a club would always be a get-our for reckless behavior). Maybe the board gambled on selling Grealish in January (which his injury scuppered and selling anyone in the summer won’t work because it’s our accounts to 31/5/19 which count, and the window doesn’t open till 1st July. Maybe Purslow thinks selling the training ground for an inflated price will wipe out the FFP losses before 31 May (the EFL will be all over the value attributed to any such sale to ensure that it is a fully arms length price).
I’ve been astonished at our transfer activity (or lack of sales) in the past 12 months. I’ve been even more astonished at our signings of loan players on high wages. We’ve done nothing to try to comply with the very clear FFP problem.
Rocky waters ahead, but there are few similarities with Blues’ position.
My point was I don't think the Noses would have received a recommendation for 12 points deducted, but for promising new sources of income, which didn't materialise and then deciding to sign players while embargoed.
Our wage bill dramatically reduce plus we have saleable assets if needs be.
The Blues recommendation seems to be 6 points for the loss levels (ours are far higher) and 9 points for signing a player whilst under embargo.
You are completely missing the point re timing. Any steps to sell assets or to reduce wages had to have happened in this current financial year (which ends 31st May 2019) in order to be effective. What we do in the summer window doesn’t affect the figures to 31st May 2019! The ONLY asset of any value which can be sold before 31 May 2019 is the training ground, and it would need to be at a massively inflated and artificial price to cover the FFP losses - and anything inflated or artificial won’t pass the test.
It’s all far too late. The amount of ground to make up is far too vast. Don’t forget also that FFP is a rolling 3-year test. Maximum permitted losses are £39m in each 3-year period. It looks certain therefore that we will breach it again next season, and the season after, before the impact of the remedial steps to cut the annual losses (which haven’t really started yet) have the required effect.
The extent of the problem is massive - unless a sale of the training ground somehow succeeds.
-
Agreed. Simply failing the financial loss threshold is punishable by a fine as has been the case in the past. The EFL are looking to throw the book at the noses by, amongst other things, signing a player under embargo.
Wrong. QPR got clobbered with £42m fines and transfer embargoes and that was BEFORE the rules were tightened up to make everything far more enforceable.
This is the sort of complacency that the club’s hierarchy is guilty of. Last summer needed drastic action. It didn’t happen.
-
Well Purslow doesn't seem to think there will be a problem so let's wait and see shall we.
-
Well Purslow doesn't seem to think there will be a problem so let's wait and see shall we.
Purslow appears to be staking everything on number 26 red coming up at the casino. If he’s right, then he’s played a blinder. But if he’s wrong....
-
The sales of Jack and McGinn this summer should add about £40m to our net profit.
-
The sales of Jack and McGinn this summer should add about £40m to our net profit.
That won’t help one iota re the immediate FFP issue. They cannot he sold until the transfer window opens on 1st July and it is the accounts for the year ended 31st May 2019 which is relevant. They cannot be sold before 31st May! Grealish should have been sold last summer, along with Chester and any other valuable players. It’s all too late!
-
The sales of Jack and McGinn this summer should add about £40m to our net profit.
Sadly I think you are right.
It’s not a case of wanting to sell our best players but it’s the stark reality of spending 3 (going on 4) years in this division.
I think regardless of how rich our owners are, they won’t be allowed to spend any where the amount needed to rebuild the squad without bringing in significant cash first.
-
We're doomed I tell ye. Doomed. *rolls eyeballs*.
-
The sales of Jack and McGinn this summer should add about £40m to our net profit.
Sadly I think you are right.
It’s not a case of wanting to sell our best players but it’s the stark reality of spending 3 (going on 4) years in this division.
I think regardless of how rich our owners are, they won’t be allowed to spend any where the amount needed to rebuild the squad without bringing in significant cash first.
The absurdity of FFP is that they must sell, raise a lot of money to generate profit to wipe out FFP losses, but not then be able to sign players for fees with a transfer embargo, and still must keep the wage bill right down to make sure that we stay within the FFP limits.
-
Is blaming the previous owners an option?
-
Is blaming the previous owners an option?
Not when he is still here. Unless you mean Lerner?
-
The sales of Jack and McGinn this summer should add about £40m to our net profit.
That won’t help one iota re the immediate FFP issue. They cannot he sold until the transfer window opens on 1st July and it is the accounts for the year ended 31st May 2019 which is relevant. They cannot be sold before 31st May! Grealish should have been sold last summer, along with Chester and any other valuable players. It’s all too late!
I didn't say it would with this year's accounts. But there's also provision in the rules for showing that you're making an effort in years after you've had a problem, and are at least attempting to get your house in order. It's why the Blues are in bother, because they effectively stuck two fingers up at the League.
-
Grealish should have been sold last summer, along with Chester and any other valuable players. It’s all too late!
and yet the club hierarchy say absolutely everything is fine and in order
-
The sales of Jack and McGinn this summer should add about £40m to our net profit.
That won’t help one iota re the immediate FFP issue. They cannot he sold until the transfer window opens on 1st July and it is the accounts for the year ended 31st May 2019 which is relevant. They cannot be sold before 31st May! Grealish should have been sold last summer, along with Chester and any other valuable players. It’s all too late!
I didn't say it would with this year's accounts. But there's also provision in the rules for showing that you're making an effort in years after you've had a problem, and are at least attempting to get your house in order. It's why the Blues are in bother, because they effectively stuck two fingers up at the League.
The FPP position was well known last summer. What steps did the board take to address it? Going out and signing expensive players like Abraham and Mings without selling valuable players doesn’t show any attempt to get the house in order! It looks like the board has also stuck two fingers up to the board (and maybe the plan was to sell Grealish in January to solve the problem).
-
Grealish should have been sold last summer, along with Chester and any other valuable players. It’s all too late!
and yet the club hierarchy say absolutely everything is fine and in order
Indeed they do. All will be revealed soon enough.
-
Grealish should have been sold last summer, along with Chester and any other valuable players. It’s all too late!
and yet the club hierarchy say absolutely everything is fine and in order
Indeed they do. All will be revealed soon enough.
Correct. Hence me being completely relaxed about it.
-
How much did we spend on Kalinic? If its really that dire then surely that deal would have been cancelled because only a complete nutter would have gambled on this squad going up in Jaunuary.
-
Grealish should have been sold last summer, along with Chester and any other valuable players. It’s all too late!
and yet the club hierarchy say absolutely everything is fine and in order
Indeed they do. All will be revealed soon enough.
Do you like Kit-Kats?
-
Grealish should have been sold last summer, along with Chester and any other valuable players. It’s all too late!
and yet the club hierarchy say absolutely everything is fine and in order
Indeed they do. All will be revealed soon enough.
Do you like Kit-Kats?
Buys loads of them from Tesco’s.
-
Do they taste bitter?
-
Grealish should have been sold last summer, along with Chester and any other valuable players. It’s all too late!
and yet the club hierarchy say absolutely everything is fine and in order
Indeed they do. All will be revealed soon enough.
Do you like Kit-Kats?
Buys loads of them from Tesco’s.
Takes them back in those wanky blue and white stripey bags I imagine.
-
Stores them on a boiler
-
You'd think Captain Senseless and his ilk would have learnt from last Summer when they wanked themselves into a stupor imagining us going bankrupt, then we were taken over by more billionaires. Don't count your Chickens you ******, we will see where we all are this time in 12 months. You'll still be reading about us obsessively, I'm sure of that and the Villa won't be ponderous shit, deep down you know it too.
-
The sales of Jack and McGinn this summer should add about £40m to our net profit.
That won’t help one iota re the immediate FFP issue. They cannot he sold until the transfer window opens on 1st July and it is the accounts for the year ended 31st May 2019 which is relevant. They cannot be sold before 31st May! Grealish should have been sold last summer, along with Chester and any other valuable players. It’s all too late!
I didn't say it would with this year's accounts. But there's also provision in the rules for showing that you're making an effort in years after you've had a problem, and are at least attempting to get your house in order. It's why the Blues are in bother, because they effectively stuck two fingers up at the League.
The FPP position was well known last summer. What steps did the board take to address it? Going out and signing expensive players like Abraham and Mings without selling valuable players doesn’t show any attempt to get the house in order! It looks like the board has also stuck two fingers up to the board (and maybe the plan was to sell Grealish in January to solve the problem).
Well the 2018 accounts will be out in the next three weeks, so we'll get a clue then.
-
Our response when the EFL question our finances
(https://thumbs.gfycat.com/ExcellentFeminineCockroach-max-1mb.gif)
-
We've got money anyway. So we should spend it. I couldn't give a fuck anymore about penny pinching and selling anyone any good to spend roughly the same amount as Rotherham, even though your owners could buy every single club in the division 10 times over.
-
We’ll just do what we did in 1888 and form a brand new ‘Football League’ from scratch.
-
We’ll just do what we did in 1888 and form a brand new ‘Football League’ from scratch.
Please can we be the only team in it, so that we stand a chance of actually winning it. And the associated cup competition.
-
We'd still find a way to fuck it up.
-
We'd still find a way to fuck it up.
We’ll lose to our U23’s
-
We'd still find a way to fuck it up.
We’ll lose to our U23’s
I'd treat that as a win win
-
Was 1888 the last time we were any good?
-
My grandfather said we were brilliant. Then again he attempted suicide the first time we were relegated. Clearly runs in the family.
-
Be interesting to see the situation as accounts are due in a couple of weeks.
-
We lose parachute payments this summer don't we so you to balance that out with losing some more high earners and possibly selling a crown jewel like Jack.
What I don't understand is why we just didn't sell Jack last summer. Yes Spurs weren't paying our valuation but it's still something to avert a potential FFP sanction.
Would be disappointed in the new lot if we get hit with any sort of points deduction (we can barely challenge for top 6 starting on 0 points). We had a massive warning last summer which we were lucky to get away with.
-
Thank god we didn’t sell Jack, can you imagine what Bruce would have done with any spare cash.
The Club has said FFP is not a problem,
I am baffled by this aswell.
-
Last summer was a capital issue as Dr Tony had maxed out the credit card.
Shaun Harvey is going. We've probably bought the new CEO or donated an airport to the EFL or something.
-
We lose parachute payments this summer don't we so you to balance that out with losing some more high earners and possibly selling a crown jewel like Jack.
What I don't understand is why we just didn't sell Jack last summer. Yes Spurs weren't paying our valuation but it's still something to avert a potential FFP sanction.
Would be disappointed in the new lot if we get hit with any sort of points deduction (we can barely challenge for top 6 starting on 0 points). We had a massive warning last summer which we were lucky to get away with.
Why should we sell him for less than his worth? Especially if the club understands that we didn’t ‘need’ to at that time.
I’m glad we told spurs to fuck off.
If we ‘must’ sell him in the future, and I’m resigned to the fact we do, then at least his true worth to Aston Villa is covered by a minimum valuation in his contract, hopefully.
-
Plus there was always the hope with promotion this season that Jack would stay for just one more year of dross. As it is we're stuck here, I just hope we don't have another saga all summer about him going and that it's all done by July.
-
We lose parachute payments this summer don't we so you to balance that out with losing some more high earners and possibly selling a crown jewel like Jack.
What I don't understand is why we just didn't sell Jack last summer. Yes Spurs weren't paying our valuation but it's still something to avert a potential FFP sanction.
Would be disappointed in the new lot if we get hit with any sort of points deduction (we can barely challenge for top 6 starting on 0 points). We had a massive warning last summer which we were lucky to get away with.
Why should we sell him for less than his worth? Especially if the club understands that we didn’t ‘need’ to at that time.
I’m glad we told spurs to fuck off.
If we ‘must’ sell him in the future, and I’m resigned to the fact we do, then at least his true worth to Aston Villa is covered by a minimum valuation in his contract, hopefully.
Probably around the period we were trying to pay our tax bills in instalments and cashing in on our sell on clauses for players we sold in 2016.
I agree things changed when Wes and Nas turned up. Let's hope they're owners who have properly looked at the long term rather than just paying lip service to it.
-
Fuck it. Spend spend spend, get promoted, take the fine. Totally worth it so long as we get promoted! Risk? What risk? 😬
-
Fuck it. Spend spend spend, get promoted, take the fine. Totally worth it so long as we get promoted! Risk? What risk? 😬
We tried that method in 16/17! Unlike Bournemouth and Leicester we just forgot the get promoted part of the job.
Could be wrong but read somewhere the new rules coming in know mean FL or independent board can now recommend to premier league teams that break rules and get promoted can be deducted points in the premier league to stop that little loophole.
-
We lose parachute payments this summer don't we so you to balance that out with losing some more high earners and possibly selling a crown jewel like Jack.
What I don't understand is why we just didn't sell Jack last summer. Yes Spurs weren't paying our valuation but it's still something to avert a potential FFP sanction.
Would be disappointed in the new lot if we get hit with any sort of points deduction (we can barely challenge for top 6 starting on 0 points). We had a massive warning last summer which we were lucky to get away with.
Why should we sell him for less than his worth? Especially if the club understands that we didn’t ‘need’ to at that time.
I’m glad we told spurs to fuck off.
If we ‘must’ sell him in the future, and I’m resigned to the fact we do, then at least his true worth to Aston Villa is covered by a minimum valuation in his contract, hopefully.
Probably around the period we were trying to pay our tax bills in instalments and cashing in on our sell on clauses for players we sold in 2016.
I agree things changed when Wes and Nas turned up. Let's hope they're owners who have properly looked at the long term rather than just paying lip service to it.
From what i understand Spurs never actually made an offer during that time, instead holding off until much later in the window in an attempt to push the price down and make us desperate. The new owners coming in and fixing the cashflow issues meant we could give them a "£40m or fuck off" style ultimatum so there was never really an offer to accept.
-
Didn't they make an early extremely derisory offer of £3m and Onomah?
-
Didn't they make an early extremely derisory offer of £3m and Onomah?
They may have (but I don't recall it being widely reported and I'm fairly sure there was something from the club saying no offer had been received after that came out) buteven if they did that would've done nothing to help the finances so the point remains that Villa never really had a decision to make until we no longer needed the cash.
-
Companies house saying the owners have put in another 13 squillion to cover January.
-
Companies house saying the owners have put in another 13 squillion to cover January.
That sounds a bit hand to mouth which can't be good long term?
-
It obviously doesn't say anything about "covering January". They've injected some more capital, that's all.
-
Didn't they make an early extremely derisory offer of £3m Onomah?
correct, so a net bid of £1.5m
-
It obviously doesn't say anything about "covering January". They've injected some more capital, that's all.
Exactly, it says that we have owners that are making sure we don’t have cash flow problems.
-
(http://villaunderground.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Screenshot-2019-02-20-at-19.18.29.png)
-
I'm dreading the accounts coming out later this month, cant see past more bad news to go with the cluster fuck of a season we've ended up having.
-
We lose parachute payments this summer don't we so you to balance that out with losing some more high earners and possibly selling a crown jewel like Jack.
What I don't understand is why we just didn't sell Jack last summer. Yes Spurs weren't paying our valuation but it's still something to avert a potential FFP sanction.
Would be disappointed in the new lot if we get hit with any sort of points deduction (we can barely challenge for top 6 starting on 0 points). We had a massive warning last summer which we were lucky to get away with.
Why should we sell him for less than his worth? Especially if the club understands that we didn’t ‘need’ to at that time.
I’m glad we told spurs to fuck off.
If we ‘must’ sell him in the future, and I’m resigned to the fact we do, then at least his true worth to Aston Villa is covered by a minimum valuation in his contract, hopefully.
Probably around the period we were trying to pay our tax bills in instalments and cashing in on our sell on clauses for players we sold in 2016.
I agree things changed when Wes and Nas turned up. Let's hope they're owners who have properly looked at the long term rather than just paying lip service to it.
From what i understand Spurs never actually made an offer during that time, instead holding off until much later in the window in an attempt to push the price down and make us desperate. The new owners coming in and fixing the cashflow issues meant we could give them a "£40m or fuck off" style ultimatum so there was never really an offer to accept.
I have no doubt they were low balling. Ultimately though Jack thought Hull first game was going to be his last game for us so we must've been close to accepting whatever they were offering for him to have that impression.
-
Or he was under the impression they were going to make a sensible offer and we'd have to accept it as we were fecked. They never did and we didn't end up having to sell any way.
-
Does that injection of new capital dilute Xia's stake further?
-
I don't think he has a stake anymore.
-
I would guess that the Accounts will show a loss of £20+ million, until we realise that we have to operate as a championship club, paying championship wages, we will never sort out the mess we are in with regards to expenditure.
-
I would guess that the Accounts will show a loss of £20+ million, until we realise that we have to operate as a championship club, paying championship wages, we will never sort out the mess we are in with regards to expenditure.
I agree. I fear its too late now. I wish they would have focused on balancing the books more.
I dont like the silence from the club on the end of season plans if we dont get promoted.
Do the fans union groups ask the club about this in the meetings they have?
-
There are minutes posted here if you have a look at the right thread mate. I'm not sure which one it is but I'm sure Dave or Mr Shin et al will point you in the right direction. The questions are asked but I don't suppose the club can ever be completely sure of the answer. For arguments sake, it does not look right now that we will hit the play off's. But, what if.......
-
It's damned if they do in some quarters. If they say nothing they're wrong and if they say promotion isn't vital they don't care.
-
Last summer was a capital issue as Dr Tony had maxed out the credit card.
Shaun Harvey is going. We've probably bought the new CEO or donated an airport to the EFL or something.
The new CEO will have a lovely brand new pair of Adidas Adastripe trainers waiting for him or her on their desk when they arrive.
-
It's damned if they do in some quarters. If they say nothing they're wrong and if they say promotion isn't vital they don't care.
"Vital"? Not quite what what they said.
They said they weren't "expecting" this manager and team to get promoted.
-
It's damned if they do in some quarters. If they say nothing they're wrong and if they say promotion isn't vital they don't care.
"Vital"? Not quite what what they said.
They said they weren't "expecting" this manager and team to get promoted.
Purslow said it wasn't imperative because they wanted to build something concrete for the future. We've all being crying out for a long term approach to things versus a quick fix that falls apart. Why are you constantly spinning the negative?
-
It's damned if they do in some quarters. If they say nothing they're wrong and if they say promotion isn't vital they don't care.
"Vital"? Not quite what what they said.
They said they weren't "expecting" this manager and team to get promoted.
You're starting to get a bit boring now.
-
"Starting to"?
-
It's damned if they do in some quarters. If they say nothing they're wrong and if they say promotion isn't vital they don't care.
"Vital"? Not quite what what they said.
They said they weren't "expecting" this manager and team to get promoted.
Purslow said it wasn't imperative because they wanted to build something concrete for the future. We've all being crying out for a long term approach to things versus a quick fix that falls apart. Why are you constantly spinning the negative?
I'm not the one spinning anything.
The words "not expecting" were used in relation to promotion.
-
Zzzzzzz .....
-
It's damned if they do in some quarters. If they say nothing they're wrong and if they say promotion isn't vital they don't care.
"Vital"? Not quite what what they said.
They said they weren't "expecting" this manager and team to get promoted.
Purslow said it wasn't imperative because they wanted to build something concrete for the future. We've all being crying out for a long term approach to things versus a quick fix that falls apart. Why are you constantly spinning the negative?
I'm not the one spinning anything.
The words "not expecting" were used in relation to promotion.
Read what said in context of the word “expecting”.
-
Article in today's Daily Mail
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-6840541/Villa-Derby-Sheffield-Wednesday-clubs-face-sanctions.html
-
That article is a bit 'yeah?, No shit Sherlock' isn't it. Given that Purslow helped to write the rules, I trust him far more than the Mail. I'm sure the club has a plan. Oh, and the smaller clubs are less sympathetic? I'm sure Birmingham are seething.
-
How are the limits not increased on a yearly basis anyway seeing as wages, transfer fees and general running costs increase year on year?
-
Article
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-6840541/Villa-Derby-Sheffield-Wednesday-clubs-face-sanctions.html
Daily Mail spreading the dirt, who'd have thought ! They need to tread carefully.
-
Speculative article is speculative.
-
Alan Nixon reckons we're not concerned.
Combination of a crafty CEO who wrote the rules and being richer than all the other 72, the EFL, Jesus, the Beatles and Crosesus combined I suppose.
-
Key points of the blues report.
EFL took into consideration who was to blame, the managers or the owners.
Our owners inherited what the past regime did.
I’m told Purslow from day one has engaged in the league and they rubber stamped a 3 year plan for us.
We’ve not even breached FFP yet as this years figures is a forecast document.
- this seasons financials will be looked at again in the summer to see if we have breached this season and by how much
- The past 2 seasons is mitigation as how can current owners change the past when not at the helm
- We have a 3 year plan working with the EFL
- we’ve been open and transparent unlike them down the road who tried to cover it up
Ultimately if we don’t go up then a Jack sale well and truly bails us out. Even if the scum sell Adams for say £15m they can only allocate a portion of that fee over the length of his contract (say £3m per season for 5 years)
With Jack his WHOLE fee goes straight into the current years books.
All this showing how the club are committed to being sustainable and working with the P&S EFL rules.
I would be astounded if we got stung and would expect us to challenge it in court of arbitration if we did
-
Speculative article is speculative.
It’s using us as the biggest name in the league to say “look, punishments can happen now”
The article is crap. It mentions derby being in danger but then says a sale would sort them out. That’s exactly where we are now
-
How long before we say screw this and form a ‘PL2’
-
With regards to the 9 point deduction to those down the road, and the article in the Daily Heil, I suggest everyone actually read the EFL statement, which blows the Daily Heil article to bits.
https://www.efl.com/news/2019/march/efl-statement-birmingham-city/ or see below,
Note in the following, that Blues were the only team found to have breached the rules;
An EFL spokesman said: “The Profitability and Sustainability Rules, aligned with those in the Premier League, became effective in 2015/16. Season 2017/18 was the end of the first full reporting period with Birmingham City the only Club found to have breached those requirements, when it incurred adjusted losses of £48.787 million, £9.787 million in excess of the permitted losses.
Also for those crowing mind the gap etc the statement also says the following;
The parties have 14 days in which to appeal the decision, and in the circumstances no further comment will be made.
The Championship league table will be amended with immediate effect but it must be recognised that this remains subject to the outcome of any appeal.
-
I can see an appeal coming and them getting potentially getting a reduced points deduction to at best half so 4/5 pts half or maybe 6pts rather than the 9pts.
Whatever finally happens that club creates it's own problems ! And they don't deserve Gary Monk. He should leave come season end and go WBA after their failure to be promoted and we the villa have gone back up !!
-
Tweet
Conversation
Alan Nixon
@reluctantnicko
Villa not worried. Sheff Wed been cutting and will cut again. Derby not been spending madly lately either.
-
Key points of the blues report.
EFL took into consideration who was to blame, the managers or the owners.
Our owners inherited what the past regime did.
I’m told Purslow from day one has engaged in the league and they rubber stamped a 3 year plan for us.
We’ve not even breached FFP yet as this years figures is a forecast document.
- this seasons financials will be looked at again in the summer to see if we have breached this season and by how much
- The past 2 seasons is mitigation as how can current owners change the past when not at the helm
- We have a 3 year plan working with the EFL
- we’ve been open and transparent unlike them down the road who tried to cover it up
Ultimately if we don’t go up then a Jack sale well and truly bails us out. Even if the scum sell Adams for say £15m they can only allocate a portion of that fee over the length of his contract (say £3m per season for 5 years)
With Jack his WHOLE fee goes straight into the current years books.
All this showing how the club are committed to being sustainable and working with the P&S EFL rules.
I would be astounded if we got stung and would expect us to challenge it in court of arbitration if we did
This is very interesting and reassuring. People look at the hard losses but the rules are for profit and SUSTAINABILITY. A sensible business plan all ratified by the EFL will surely work in our favour. Those lot down the road seemed to have just closed their eyes and hoped it will be fine.
-
Price of Football (believe he's a bod at Liverpool Uni) reckons we've complied with FFP anyway.
-
Price of Football (believe he's a bod at Liverpool Uni) reckons we've complied with FFP anyway.
Is that the bloke on twitter who posts on clubs accounting reports? He seems to know what he’s talking about
-
Price of Football (believe he's a bod at Liverpool Uni) reckons we've complied with FFP anyway.
Is that the bloke on twitter who posts on clubs accounting reports? He seems to know what he’s talking about
I hope he's right. Would shut up Richard Wilford on WM up!
-
Yeah, a lecturer on Finance at Liverpool Uni.
-
Kieran Maguire.
-
Kieran Maguire.
Unfortunately SHA listened to advice given by Kylie Minoghue
-
Kieran Maguire.
He did an extensive live stream on Benjamin Bloom's YouTube channel last week but has now been split into several separate videos.
-
SHA Forum clutching at any straw hoping we'll be punished. But they accept we'll probably "jam" our way out of it. I'd like to think our owners have got FFP nailed down. Purslow surely has the best understanding of the rules?
-
From today's Sunday Telegraph:
In the Football League’s fulsome and damning judgment of Birmingham City’s chronic overspend, there is a passage in which the club, in their desperation, try to assert the argument that although they broke financial fair play rules, they did it so badly that no advantage was gained.
This is what might reasonably be described as the idiot’s defence. Having accepted that their losses far exceeded the £39 million permitted over the three seasons in question, the owners of Birmingham tried to run one more play. This one was crazy but it might just work. Yes, they said, almost £10 million more than permitted had been spent but they invited the EFL to prove that the outgoings had yielded anything approaching a “measurable sporting advantage”.
In short, they and their lawyers tried to make a virtue of their own ineptitude. The helpless fools powerless to stop themselves spending way too much on players who were never going to get them promoted. At this point Charles Flint QC, chairman of the EFL commission, was obliged to point out that was simply not how FFP worked, and if it was there would be little point having the sanction – although all the grown-ups in the room would have known that anyway.
By their own admission, Trillion Trophy Asia are not good owners, and the nine-point deduction will be their badge of dishonour. What is it, one might ask, that would persuade the owners of a solid Championship club to go on a suicidal spending mission doomed to propel them into a relegation fight? The answer would be, because many in the Championship are doing the same and their reasons are entirely for the benefit of ownership.
-
There is a great television play starring David Kossof (sp?) from the days of black and white called The Dock Brief in which a petty crook (played by Alfie Bass I think) gets off because his lawyer is so incompetent. Somebody at The Sty must have seen it and been inspired by it.
-
Blose are lucky in that being mired in mid-table they've not missed out on a play-off push with this deduction and they likely will have too much to be involved in a relegation scrap.
If the deduction had been 12-15 points it would have made the last few weeks of the season interesting for them, they might even have filled the Sty for their last few home games instead of only when they play us...
Given that they will face no further fines I think they should be grateful that their punishment will turn out to be negligible (it's not like each Championship final position is worth the £750k or whatever it is in the PL), so they should stop moaning and shut the fcuk up.
-
Kieran Maguire.
Unfortunately SHA listened to advice given by Kylie Minoghue
That made me laugh out loud!
-
Perhaps Villa ought to put out a statement addressing this issue. If we are indeed compliant within the rules, perhaps the threat of a lawsuit against the Daily Mail might focus minds? This is damaging publicity against the club.
-
Perhaps Villa ought to put out a statement addressing this issue. If we are indeed compliant within the rules, perhaps the threat of a lawsuit against the Daily Mail might focus minds? This is damaging publicity against the club.
Letting the media walk all over us is as much a part of our identity now as winning trophies used to be.
-
Perhaps Villa ought to put out a statement addressing this issue. If we are indeed compliant within the rules, perhaps the threat of a lawsuit against the Daily Mail might focus minds? This is damaging publicity against the club.
Letting the media walk all over us is as much a part of our identity now as winning trophies used to be.
If , as has been reported we are working with and are in discussions with the EFL then there is little point in making this a media matter and drawing unnecessary attention to it.
-
Perhaps Villa ought to put out a statement addressing this issue. If we are indeed compliant within the rules, perhaps the threat of a lawsuit against the Daily Mail might focus minds? This is damaging publicity against the club.
Letting the media walk all over us is as much a part of our identity now as winning trophies used to be.
If , as has been reported we are working with and are in discussions with the EFL then there is little point in making this a media matter and drawing unnecessary attention to it.
But DW's point still stands, since it is true; but what is truth in these post-modern times.
-
Perhaps Villa ought to put out a statement addressing this issue. If we are indeed compliant within the rules, perhaps the threat of a lawsuit against the Daily Mail might focus minds? This is damaging publicity against the club.
Letting the media walk all over us is as much a part of our identity now as winning trophies used to be.
If , as has been reported we are working with and are in discussions with the EFL then there is little point in making this a media matter and drawing unnecessary attention to it.
But DW's point still stands, since it is true; but what is truth in these post-modern times.
Agree, just thinking this might be an occasion when it is in our best interests to keep our powder dry.
-
I haven't been able to face up to this. I've had a quick skim over the last couple of pages and there seems to be reason to believe that we are not cattle trucked. Am I right?
-
We're compliant. If we stay down, then we'll need to find a way of reducing losses to £7m or less.
Basically flog Grealish for £35m and shed the endless non-contributors and we will be left ok.
-
There's no way of keeping Jack then if we're stuck here even if he wanted to stay?
Please get promoted...please!
-
Parachute payments reduce income, while our permitted losses decrease to £39m from £61m, so we would need to find around £30m to comply.
Grealish going and 7 or 8 large contracts going is probably worth about £45m. Our average salary is £1.8m, but I'd imagine the likes of Jedinak, Whelan etc are on north of £34k per week.
-
Price of Football (believe he's a bod at Liverpool Uni) reckons we've complied with FFP anyway.
Is that the bloke on twitter who posts on clubs accounting reports? He seems to know what he’s talking about
I hope he's right. Would shut up Richard Wilford on WM up!
Kieron Maguire is on t’ wireless tonight. This news comes with a caveat, It’s on WM during their football phone in and Richard Wilford will be involved.
-
An interesting article on the BBC internet sport.
Blackburn, Bolton and Birmingham: Seven charts showing how Championship clubs reached this point
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/47691385
-
Only caught the last 40 minutes of the WM thing tonight. Just as well as my heads still aching now.
From what i gather, if we don't get promoted then we're really got to sell Jack to balance the books. If we don't go up i'd expect that to happen anyway obviously. The problem then is, who do we sell to balance the books the next summer if we still aren't promoted ?
-
Only caught the last 40 minutes of the WM thing tonight. Just as well as my heads still aching now.
From what i gather, if we don't get promoted then we're really got to sell Jack to balance the books. If we don't go up i'd expect that to happen anyway obviously. The problem then is, who do we sell to balance the books the next summer if we still aren't promoted ?
SJM probably
-
Bringing the age of the squad down, making players more sellable is also a way of minimising FFP issues as we can agree that we will be able to sell to survive. With such an ageing squad, there aren't too many in there that are of any real value, other than Jack and SJM, of course. Smith has to make sure that he has a squad of 20, all sellable and of value to the club. Instead of the Bruce valueless trash which have left us scrabbling around this coming summer to replace them all.
-
Only caught the last 40 minutes of the WM thing tonight. Just as well as my heads still aching now.
From what i gather, if we don't get promoted then we're really got to sell Jack to balance the books. If we don't go up i'd expect that to happen anyway obviously. The problem then is, who do we sell to balance the books the next summer if we still aren't promoted ?
Yes that was insightful stuff on WM. Lots of people on here slate the station, but that was a good listen this evening. The guy they had on, Kieran Maguire, was very knowledgeable.
Blues were spending nearly twice as much as they were bringing in, and Wolves would have been in trouble had they not been promoted. They lost far more than anyone last season but apparently promotion bonuses aren't included in any calculation. Also an interesting article on Redknapp in the Observer yesterday.
We were so close to liquidation in the summer, that the criticism Bruce gets about leaving the squad in a parlous state now seems quite harsh.
We may need to get creative ourselves in the summer if we don't go up or inevitably we'll sell Jack and maybe McGinn.
-
There's only one thing for it...we need to support the team all the way to the playoff final then rock Wembley to its foundations as we roar them on to victory.
-
An interesting article on the BBC internet sport.
Blackburn, Bolton and Birmingham: Seven charts showing how Championship clubs reached this point
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/47691385
Thanks for that, B23. Quite interesting. Kieran Maguire seems to know a thing or two about a thing or two on the issue.
-
Does anyone have a link to the WM show and is it playable outside of the West-Mids?
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p07328z3
-
Ta.
-
Only caught the last 40 minutes of the WM thing tonight. Just as well as my heads still aching now.
From what i gather, if we don't get promoted then we're really got to sell Jack to balance the books. If we don't go up i'd expect that to happen anyway obviously. The problem then is, who do we sell to balance the books the next summer if we still aren't promoted ?
Yes that was insightful stuff on WM. Lots of people on here slate the station, but that was a good listen this evening. The guy they had on, Kieran Maguire, was very knowledgeable.
Blues were spending nearly twice as much as they were bringing in, and Wolves would have been in trouble had they not been promoted. They lost far more than anyone last season but apparently promotion bonuses aren't included in any calculation. Also an interesting article on Redknapp in the Observer yesterday.
We were so close to liquidation in the summer, that the criticism Bruce gets about leaving the squad in a parlous state now seems quite harsh.
We may need to get creative ourselves in the summer if we don't go up or inevitably we'll sell Jack and maybe McGinn.
Bruce was a major contributor to us being in the shit.
-
Only caught the last 40 minutes of the WM thing tonight. Just as well as my heads still aching now.
From what i gather, if we don't get promoted then we're really got to sell Jack to balance the books. If we don't go up i'd expect that to happen anyway obviously. The problem then is, who do we sell to balance the books the next summer if we still aren't promoted ?
Yes that was insightful stuff on WM. Lots of people on here slate the station, but that was a good listen this evening. The guy they had on, Kieran Maguire, was very knowledgeable.
Blues were spending nearly twice as much as they were bringing in, and Wolves would have been in trouble had they not been promoted. They lost far more than anyone last season but apparently promotion bonuses aren't included in any calculation. Also an interesting article on Redknapp in the Observer yesterday.
We were so close to liquidation in the summer, that the criticism Bruce gets about leaving the squad in a parlous state now seems quite harsh.
We may need to get creative ourselves in the summer if we don't go up or inevitably we'll sell Jack and maybe McGinn.
Bruce was a major contributor to us being in the shit.
So was O'Neill, how far we gonna go back into our repertoire of making awful business decisions ?
It's been one bad decision after another for god knows how long now.
-
We were so close to liquidation in the summer, that the criticism Bruce gets about leaving the squad in a parlous state now seems quite harsh.
Not really. The new owners took charge in late July. I'm not sure how being close to liquidation the month before meant he had to:
- loan out Elphick (31st Aug) and leave us without a back-up centre half,
- spunk good money on loaning Moereira (26th July) and buying Nyland (7th Aug) while loaning out Jed Steer who is at least their equal
- bring in 2 wingers (Bolasie and El Ghazi) on the 22nd and 25th August while loaning out Green, but not bring in a left back.
Those were nothing to do with the financial situation, just shit management of resources.
-
Yes, I really wish we had Bruce back in charge of this football team, with his strong financial skills and brilliant transfer dealing.
-
We were so close to liquidation in the summer, that the criticism Bruce gets about leaving the squad in a parlous state now seems quite harsh.
Not really. The new owners took charge in late July. I'm not sure how being close to liquidation the month before meant he had to:
- loan out Elphick (31st Aug) and leave us without a back-up centre half,
- spunk good money on loaning Moereira (26th July) and buying Nyland (7th Aug) while loaning out Jed Steer who is at least their equal
- bring in 2 wingers (Bolasie and El Ghazi) on the 22nd and 25th August while loaning out Green, but not bring in a left back.
Those were nothing to do with the financial situation, just shit management of resources.
Can't really argue with that. I have sympathy with him for his family and personal issues, but there are no excuses for some of his decisions regarding his management of Aston Villa.
-
We were so close to liquidation in the summer, that the criticism Bruce gets about leaving the squad in a parlous state now seems quite harsh.
Not really. The new owners took charge in late July. I'm not sure how being close to liquidation the month before meant he had to:
- loan out Elphick (31st Aug) and leave us without a back-up centre half,
- spunk good money on loaning Moereira (26th July) and buying Nyland (7th Aug) while loaning out Jed Steer who is at least their equal
- bring in 2 wingers (Bolasie and El Ghazi) on the 22nd and 25th August while loaning out Green, but not bring in a left back.
Those were nothing to do with the financial situation, just shit management of resources.
Absolutely. It was all very nice signing attacking players but it did seem obvious we had massively failed to fill a JT shaped hole in our defence. Then there was his continued belief that playing a midfielder at centre half, a centre half at right back and a right back at left back was a good idea.
-
Villa were two hours from Administration/Liquidation last summer.
-
We were so close to liquidation in the summer, that the criticism Bruce gets about leaving the squad in a parlous state now seems quite harsh.
Not really. The new owners took charge in late July. I'm not sure how being close to liquidation the month before meant he had to:
- loan out Elphick (31st Aug) and leave us without a back-up centre half,
- spunk good money on loaning Moereira (26th July) and buying Nyland (7th Aug) while loaning out Jed Steer who is at least their equal
- bring in 2 wingers (Bolasie and El Ghazi) on the 22nd and 25th August while loaning out Green, but not bring in a left back.
Those were nothing to do with the financial situation, just shit management of resources.
Absolutely. It was all very nice signing attacking players but it did seem obvious we had massively failed to fill a JT shaped hole in our defence. Then there was his continued belief that playing a midfielder at centre half, a centre half at right back and a right back at left back was a good idea.
And even when we signed attacking players like Abraham he then just dropped Kodjia to the bench at Blackburn away insisting on playing just one up front arrrgh !
-
And we still play one up front to this day. What a visionary!
-
75k a week on Bolasie. Absolutely criminal. From near liquidation to criminal masterclass.
-
Only caught the last 40 minutes of the WM thing tonight. Just as well as my heads still aching now.
From what i gather, if we don't get promoted then we're really got to sell Jack to balance the books. If we don't go up i'd expect that to happen anyway obviously. The problem then is, who do we sell to balance the books the next summer if we still aren't promoted ?
Yes that was insightful stuff on WM. Lots of people on here slate the station, but that was a good listen this evening. The guy they had on, Kieran Maguire, was very knowledgeable.
Blues were spending nearly twice as much as they were bringing in, and Wolves would have been in trouble had they not been promoted. They lost far more than anyone last season but apparently promotion bonuses aren't included in any calculation. Also an interesting article on Redknapp in the Observer yesterday.
We were so close to liquidation in the summer, that the criticism Bruce gets about leaving the squad in a parlous state now seems quite harsh.
We may need to get creative ourselves in the summer if we don't go up or inevitably we'll sell Jack and maybe McGinn.
Bruce was a major contributor to us being in the shit.
So was O'Neill, how far we gonna go back into our repertoire of making awful business decisions ?
It's been one bad decision after another for god knows how long now.
Well you can’t go back further than O’Neill because before that we had Doug - & The we didn’t make bad business decisions, we made bad football decisions instead!
-
Only caught the last 40 minutes of the WM thing tonight. Just as well as my heads still aching now.
From what i gather, if we don't get promoted then we're really got to sell Jack to balance the books. If we don't go up i'd expect that to happen anyway obviously. The problem then is, who do we sell to balance the books the next summer if we still aren't promoted ?
Yes that was insightful stuff on WM. Lots of people on here slate the station, but that was a good listen this evening. The guy they had on, Kieran Maguire, was very knowledgeable.
Blues were spending nearly twice as much as they were bringing in, and Wolves would have been in trouble had they not been promoted. They lost far more than anyone last season but apparently promotion bonuses aren't included in any calculation. Also an interesting article on Redknapp in the Observer yesterday.
We were so close to liquidation in the summer, that the criticism Bruce gets about leaving the squad in a parlous state now seems quite harsh.
We may need to get creative ourselves in the summer if we don't go up or inevitably we'll sell Jack and maybe McGinn.
Bruce was a major contributor to us being in the shit.
So was O'Neill, how far we gonna go back into our repertoire of making awful business decisions ?
It's been one bad decision after another for god knows how long now.
The current situation falls on 6 people to varying degrees, Lerner and Sherwood for making a fucking mess of the summer before relegation, Wyness, Xia and RDM for signings like McCormack in the first summer down and Bruce for adding to that with the likes of Hogan, Lansbury, Bjarnason (who cost a fair bit, are on big wages and never play) and some incredibly expensive loans.
-
I know he is everywhere, but I think this column from Kieran Maguire is a really interesting read: Villa saved by the train?
https://offthepitch.com/a/villa-saved-train
Unfortunately it is behind a paywall but they offer 30-day free trial and if you also like to read about Football Finance and the industry, it seems like a good site. Only been a subscriber for a few days so please don't take me up on it, if you think it is bullshit.
-
I know he is everywhere, but I think this column from Kieran Maguire is a really interesting read: Villa saved by the train?
https://offthepitch.com/a/villa-saved-train
Unfortunately it is behind a paywall but they offer 30-day free trial and if you also like to read about Football Finance and the industry, it seems like a good site. Only been a subscriber for a few days so please don't take me up on it, if you think it is bullshit.
If they/you would like to advertise we can always discuss rates.
-
An interesting article on the BBC internet sport.
Blackburn, Bolton and Birmingham: Seven charts showing how Championship clubs reached this point
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/47691385
Thanks for that, B23. Quite interesting. Kieran Maguire seems to know a thing or two about a thing or two on the issue.
I was surprised to see Cardiff so high up the list. I thought they had achieved promotion by spending relatively little money. As for Small Heath, whatever we say about Carson they appeared to be relatively financially stable under him. I do remember when they went down they sold off a number of high earners and didn't spend much to replace them under Hughton. It all went very wrong very quickly when Trillion Trophies and Triffic Harry started spending money like a drunken sailor on shore leave.
-
I know he is everywhere, but I think this column from Kieran Maguire is a really interesting read: Villa saved by the train?
https://offthepitch.com/a/villa-saved-train
Unfortunately it is behind a paywall but they offer 30-day free trial and if you also like to read about Football Finance and the industry, it seems like a good site. Only been a subscriber for a few days so please don't take me up on it, if you think it is bullshit.
If they/you would like to advertise we can always discuss rates.
Sorry. Did not mean to advertise. Just thought it could be interesting for other Villa fan to read - like the BBC-url two or three replies above. Please let me know what I did wrong so I don't do it again.
-
Can some one copy and paste the article? Then we can all have a read.
-
75k a week on Bolasie. Absolutely criminal. From near liquidation to criminal masterclass.
Bruce was SOLELY in charge of transfers/contracts at that point
-
75k a week on Bolasie. Absolutely criminal. From near liquidation to criminal masterclass.
Bruce was SOLELY in charge of transfers/contracts at that point
Yes, my point exactly. Criminal, and yet some think blaming Bruce is harsh!
-
If Steve was paying out of his own piggy bank fair enough like.
-
Only caught the last 40 minutes of the WM thing tonight. Just as well as my heads still aching now.
From what i gather, if we don't get promoted then we're really got to sell Jack to balance the books. If we don't go up i'd expect that to happen anyway obviously. The problem then is, who do we sell to balance the books the next summer if we still aren't promoted ?
Yes that was insightful stuff on WM. Lots of people on here slate the station, but that was a good listen this evening. The guy they had on, Kieran Maguire, was very knowledgeable.
Blues were spending nearly twice as much as they were bringing in, and Wolves would have been in trouble had they not been promoted. They lost far more than anyone last season but apparently promotion bonuses aren't included in any calculation. Also an interesting article on Redknapp in the Observer yesterday.
We were so close to liquidation in the summer, that the criticism Bruce gets about leaving the squad in a parlous state now seems quite harsh.
We may need to get creative ourselves in the summer if we don't go up or inevitably we'll sell Jack and maybe McGinn.
Bruce was a major contributor to us being in the shit.
So was O'Neill, how far we gonna go back into our repertoire of making awful business decisions ?
It's been one bad decision after another for god knows how long now.
The current situation falls on 6 people to varying degrees, Lerner and Sherwood for making a fucking mess of the summer before relegation, Wyness, Xia and RDM for signings like McCormack in the first summer down and Bruce for adding to that with the likes of Hogan, Lansbury, Bjarnason (who cost a fair bit, are on big wages and never play) and some incredibly expensive loans.
But all of that was set in motion the day that O'Neill cynically walked out at the worst possible time having been naively trusted by Lerner to the point that there was no-one at the club who could steady the ship.
-
Only caught the last 40 minutes of the WM thing tonight. Just as well as my heads still aching now.
From what i gather, if we don't get promoted then we're really got to sell Jack to balance the books. If we don't go up i'd expect that to happen anyway obviously. The problem then is, who do we sell to balance the books the next summer if we still aren't promoted ?
Yes that was insightful stuff on WM. Lots of people on here slate the station, but that was a good listen this evening. The guy they had on, Kieran Maguire, was very knowledgeable.
Blues were spending nearly twice as much as they were bringing in, and Wolves would have been in trouble had they not been promoted. They lost far more than anyone last season but apparently promotion bonuses aren't included in any calculation. Also an interesting article on Redknapp in the Observer yesterday.
We were so close to liquidation in the summer, that the criticism Bruce gets about leaving the squad in a parlous state now seems quite harsh.
We may need to get creative ourselves in the summer if we don't go up or inevitably we'll sell Jack and maybe McGinn.
Bruce was a major contributor to us being in the shit.
So was O'Neill, how far we gonna go back into our repertoire of making awful business decisions ?
It's been one bad decision after another for god knows how long now.
The current situation falls on 6 people to varying degrees, Lerner and Sherwood for making a fucking mess of the summer before relegation, Wyness, Xia and RDM for signings like McCormack in the first summer down and Bruce for adding to that with the likes of Hogan, Lansbury, Bjarnason (who cost a fair bit, are on big wages and never play) and some incredibly expensive loans.
But all of that was set in motion the day that O'Neill cynically walked out at the worst possible time having been naively trusted by Lerner to the point that there was no-one at the club who could steady the ship.
Yes,you can argue that.
But it does not forgive those that came after and fucked up and that includes Bruce.
-
Only caught the last 40 minutes of the WM thing tonight. Just as well as my heads still aching now.
From what i gather, if we don't get promoted then we're really got to sell Jack to balance the books. If we don't go up i'd expect that to happen anyway obviously. The problem then is, who do we sell to balance the books the next summer if we still aren't promoted ?
Yes that was insightful stuff on WM. Lots of people on here slate the station, but that was a good listen this evening. The guy they had on, Kieran Maguire, was very knowledgeable.
Blues were spending nearly twice as much as they were bringing in, and Wolves would have been in trouble had they not been promoted. They lost far more than anyone last season but apparently promotion bonuses aren't included in any calculation. Also an interesting article on Redknapp in the Observer yesterday.
We were so close to liquidation in the summer, that the criticism Bruce gets about leaving the squad in a parlous state now seems quite harsh.
We may need to get creative ourselves in the summer if we don't go up or inevitably we'll sell Jack and maybe McGinn.
Bruce was a major contributor to us being in the shit.
So was O'Neill, how far we gonna go back into our repertoire of making awful business decisions ?
It's been one bad decision after another for god knows how long now.
The current situation falls on 6 people to varying degrees, Lerner and Sherwood for making a fucking mess of the summer before relegation, Wyness, Xia and RDM for signings like McCormack in the first summer down and Bruce for adding to that with the likes of Hogan, Lansbury, Bjarnason (who cost a fair bit, are on big wages and never play) and some incredibly expensive loans.
But all of that was set in motion the day that O'Neill cynically walked out at the worst possible time having been naively trusted by Lerner to the point that there was no-one at the club who could steady the ship.
Yes,you can argue that.
But it does not forgive those that came after and fucked up and that includes Bruce.
I don’t disagree it’s just that O’Neill is not on the list of people Paul names as responsible and he should be. Bruce was the second most brainless appointment after McLeish.
-
I don’t disagree it’s just that O’Neill is not on the list of people Paul names as responsible and he should be. Bruce was the second most brainless appointment after McLeish.
Not on that list. MoN leaving in the way he did after spending the way he had was a massive problem but by the time Sherwood was bringing in Gestede to replace Benteke and making Richards his captain we'd had 5 years to recover from that.
The relegation came about because we had 2 different transfer strategies running at the same time that summer which meant we made more signings than we should've and we split the squad in 2, with a manager who did nothing to fix that split and instead decided to use it as an excuse for his own failings.
The imbalance it left in the squad meant that when Xia, Wyness and RDM came in the following summer they repeated the mistake, signing too many players and not really having a proper plan of how to fit them together and integrate them into the existing squad. The lack of familiarity in the squad leading to RDM being sacked within a couple of months.
Then we get to Bruce who got initial results by simplifying things down to the most basic tactics possible before he falling into the exact same trap and signing players without a plan for 3 windows out of 4. The only window that didn't cause us problems was January last season where the financial position meant that all he could do was get Grabban on loan.
All of those things put us in a position of having a squad with a handful of players we could sell for a profit which had too many players in some positions and not enough in others and that was costing us premier league level wages despite us having a significantly smaller income.
MON, McLeish, Lambert and plenty of others got us to the point where this started but the 3 seasons up until this summer is the worst the club has been run in my time and put us on a clear path to oblivion.
-
Our whole business model has been wrong since coming down.
2016 we just bet the house on promotion when our squad still had losing mentality which was a bizarre policy.
Signing likes of McCormack and Kodjia when we still had likes of Bacuna and Richards not just on our books but actually starting games, didn't get it at all.
Would've been better to just use 16-17 as a transitional season and weed out the misfits in the squad which we eventually had to do given how poor we started.
We essentially spent 50m to finish 11th or12th so laughably bad management.
17-18 was better as we just signed free transfers and loans, trouble was majority were over 30 so again we don't go up we run into trouble.
At least with the people we have in top jobs now we can get past this mentality we just have to sign premier league players who cost a fortune. Tammy has been good of course but then we have Bolasie.
Let's find some gems from elsewhere, McGinn has been good after all and hopefully the French RB will be a great pick up. If we'd had that mentality in summer 2016 I reckon we'd be out of this league by now and FFP would be an afterthought as it is for Wolves.
-
Agre, I allways thought that the first season down was more about affording the clear out than bringing players in.
We continued to try to buy our way out of trouble.
-
Any updates on this? When are we likely to know if which side of the £39m we fall?
-
It's not £39m, its £61m and we haven't failed it.
-
Any updates on this? When are we likely to know if which side of the £39m we fall?
You're looking in the wrong place.
The SHA site will no doubt have (at least) an entire thread and they'll all be far more knowledgeable about the current status than than us!!!
-
As previously posted;
With regards to the 9 point deduction to those down the road, and the article in the Daily Heil, I suggest everyone actually read the EFL statement, which blows the Daily Heil article to bits.
https://www.efl.com/news/2019/march/efl-statement-birmingham-city/ or see below,
Note in the following, that Blues were the only team found to have breached the rules;
An EFL spokesman said: “The Profitability and Sustainability Rules, aligned with those in the Premier League, became effective in 2015/16. Season 2017/18 was the end of the first full reporting period with Birmingham City the only Club found to have breached those requirements, when it incurred adjusted losses of £48.787 million, £9.787 million in excess of the permitted losses.
Also for those crowing mind the gap etc the statement also says the following;
The parties have 14 days in which to appeal the decision, and in the circumstances no further comment will be made.
The Championship league table will be amended with immediate effect but it must be recognised that this remains subject to the outcome of any appeal.
Until we are named, as having broken the FFP rules, (which the EFL statement proves that we haven't), lets stop worrying eh??
-
I presume with the fantastic attendances at Villa Park, we must be making quite a dent in FFP with gate receipts and merchandise too?
-
I presume with the fantastic attendances at Villa Park, we must be making quite a dent in FFP with gate receipts and merchandise too?
An extra 5,000 people paying £30 each gets you about 3 weeks of Scott Hogan - let that one sink in!!!!
-
Having a season ticket in The Holte End for 50 years would pay Micah Richards for about 2 days.
That’s why you need to be a vocal supporter - your money on its own doesn’t help!
-
The risk is about this season, which will be based on accounts posted next spring (but which will be being monitored in real time)
Yorkshire villain on twitter the most informative stuff I've found on this
-
Normal ticket gate revenue makes up about 10% of our income.
-
Randy should have rebuilt the North when he could. We'd be having 50k attendances for the remaining games.
-
ToryGraph (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2019/04/15/middlesbrough-chairman-steve-gibson-pushes-efl-investigate-rivals/)
Middlesbrough chairman Steve Gibson pushes EFL to investigate rivals over financial conduct
John Percy
15 April 2019 • 10:30pm
Middlesbrough chairman Steve Gibson is demanding an English Football League investigation into the financial conduct of three Championship rivals.
Gibson wants the EFL to scrutinise Derby County, Aston Villa and Sheffield Wednesday over what he believes to be breaches of financial regulations, in a move which could trigger a bitter dispute between the clubs.
The 61-year-old is insisting the three clubs are attempting to bypass the new profitability and sustainability rules by unfair means, and he has arranged a special meeting of all Championship clubs for a week on Wednesday.
Gibson is understood to be “furious” that Middlesbrough have sold over £40 million worth of players, including Adama Traore, Ben Gibson and Patrick Bamford, to balance the books, while in his view other clubs are manipulating the rules by allocating some costs to stay in line.
Derby, for example, recently sold their Pride Park stadium to owner Mel Morris and then leased it back to ensure the club recorded a profit in their 2017/18 accounts.
Sources at Derby insist they have been fully compliant with the new profitability and sustainability rules and do not fear a similar fate to Birmingham, who were docked nine points by the EFL last month.
But Derby are said to be operating under a “soft transfer embargo”, which is preventing them from registering Aberdeen captain Graeme Shinnie.
The midfielder held talks with Derby last week but cannot sign a pre-contract at this stage, as the club’s accounts are being looked at by the EFL.
It is understood the embargo should be lifted later this week, however, enabling Derby manager Frank Lampard to make Shinnie his first signing ahead of next season.
Villa, who are five points ahead of Middlesbrough in the table, have declined to comment. Wednesday owner Dejphon Chansiri admitted in January they could be placed under a transfer embargo.
Gibson will address the issue at the meeting with representatives from the other 23 clubs, and has also contacted the EFL to register his concerns.
At the last meeting, held at Nottingham Forest’s City Ground, it is alleged that Gibson even turned on the three clubs to vent his frustration.
In his programme notes before last month’s game against Norwich, Middlesbrough manager Tony Pulis wrote: “Steve has worked hard to abide by the EFL’s financial rules, but it’s clear that a number of clubs aren’t, and that simply cannot be right.
“Birmingham’s nine-point deduction should set a precedent now for those other clubs who are not complying with the rules.
“Over the past year here, we have brought money in through the sales of players and reduced the wages, and we have cut our cloth accordingly.
“Yet at the same time, there are others in apparent breach of the rules, and that cannot be right.”
Middlesbrough are seventh in the Championship. Villa appear on course for a place in the top six after eight straight wins while Derby and Wednesday remain in play-off contention.
-
Steve Gibson sounds like a man who's frustrated that he can't afford to sack Tony Pulis. Tony Pulis sounds like a man who knows he is too expensive to sack.
-
Steve Gibson sounds like a man who's frustrated that he can't afford to sack Tony Pulis. Tony Pulis sounds like a man who knows he is too expensive to sack.
Gibbo is trying to put the mockers on Pulis's destroy and exit mission. Fat chance.
-
The Derby thing does seem a blatant attempt to get around the rules, to be fair. If they can do that then it makes a mockery of the whole rules. There is no quote in there from Gibson mentioning Villa, so adding Villa into the mix could just be media mischief-making.
-
If Derby do get away with it, and we don't go up, we need to be exploiting that loophole ASAP.
-
That Derby stunt is a bit of a pisstake it has to be said. Steve Gibson can fuck off though, smog munching twat.
-
It is easy to calculate if a Sale and Leaseback arrangement is A valid commercial transaction or otherwise.
-
"At the last meeting, held at Nottingham Forest’s City Ground, it is alleged that Gibson even turned on the three clubs to vent his frustration." By whom? And if there's 24 people at this meeting, why did no-one else weigh in too?
And no, they can't afford to sack Pulis does indeed seem to be the concensus from a look at a forum of theirs the other week.
-
We've not breached FFP, so...?
-
It’s scary that he knows more about our clubs finances than our owners.
-
The Derby thing does seem a blatant attempt to get around the rules, to be fair. If they can do that then it makes a mockery of the whole rules.
It's really not a loophole of any sort. Sale and leaseback is standard business practice in the 'real world' and has actual economic consequences. Derby County no longer own their stadium. The fact that it's to another company owned by their chairman is neither here nor there.
-
The Derby thing does seem a blatant attempt to get around the rules, to be fair. If they can do that then it makes a mockery of the whole rules.
It's really not a loophole of any sort. Sale and leaseback is standard business practice in the 'real world' and has actual economic consequences. Derby County no longer own their stadium. The fact that it's to another company owned by their chairman is neither here nor there.
Yes, it’s not wrong. Very very stupid but not wrong.
-
We've not breached FFP, so...?
How do you know we wont though this season though? Isn't the calculation made in June?
-
If I remember rightly, I read that the last CEO we had, said that even if we had been beaten Fulham and been promoted we would not have been able to splash the cash in the premier league due to FFP constraints.
If we don't get promoted this summer, will we have to be careful on what we spend due to FFP?
-
What a crap rule though, in a world where we have a home grown lad, nurtured, raised and helped guide him to being an incredible player and we are rewarded by rules which may force us to sell. Absolutely nonsense.
-
If I remember rightly, I read that the last CEO we had, said that even if we had been beaten Fulham and been promoted we would not have been able to splash the cash in the premier league due to FFP constraints.
If we don't get promoted this summer, will we have to be careful on what we spend due to FFP?
I think that was probably more down to the fact that the previous owner didn't have a pot to piss in.
-
From what’s been previously discussed on here, FFP doesn’t apply in the Premier League and you only have to comply with UEFA FFP rules if you’re playing in Europe. I don’t know how accurate or true that is, however the explanation at the time made sense.
-
Transfermkt.com shows that in the 5 years since 2014/15 Boro spent £152.9m on players and recouped £115.8 via sales.
A net spend of £37.1m.
Gibson's complaints sound like sour grapes, as last summer was the only year in the last 5 in which sales exceeded purchases.
-
I can see why they do it to stop reckless owners spending clubs into oblivion (although didn't stop our Tone having a damn good go) but FFP sucks as a means of control. Football clubs are businesses and I think any business should be allowed to speculate to accumulate otherwise it's restraint of trade. If the authorities want to protect against potential liquidations, any owners planning to spend big could be asked to place a bond of £50-£100m in escrow to bail the club out if their plans go tits up. In UEFA's case however the whole scam is designed to stop too many clubs doing a Citeh/Chelski/PSG and catching up and overtaking the likes of Real, Barca, Bayern, Man Yoo and other established wealthy clubs. Incidentally I seem to recall Real Fascist only being able to survive the galactico era because they "sold" their training ground to Madrid City Council for something like £200m and then leased it back.
-
Sale and leaseback worked well for Debenhams.
-
Gibson seems butt-hurt, maybe cos he tries to look like Tom Hanks whereas we actually have Tom as a fan.
-
He was going to smash this league last year now he just wants to smash those within it.
-
So his motion of wanting teams to publish their ffp and accounts to others got voted out at today’s meeting 👍🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻 . Not much headline news or detail around about it that I’ve seen though
-
The Derby thing does seem a blatant attempt to get around the rules, to be fair. If they can do that then it makes a mockery of the whole rules.
It's really not a loophole of any sort. Sale and leaseback is standard business practice in the 'real world' and has actual economic consequences. Derby County no longer own their stadium. The fact that it's to another company owned by their chairman is neither here nor there.
Hypothetically, if he, or rather his company, was to sell the stadium back to Derby at a much reduced rate, would that be any sort of breach of FFP?
Also, not sure what the "real world" has to do with this. Most billionaire business owners can invest what they want without worrying that it might upset their competitors, so football is already ignoring business norms in applying such rules in the first place, isn't it?
-
Restraint of trade. If they have it to spend, spend it. Bloody rules!
-
The stadium was on the books at 41m and they got an “ independent “ valuation of 80m and booked a 39mil profit by SALB.
The justification is that the new owner can use the stadium for events on the 330 days it is not in use by the club.
Now it he had paid 250 mil without a valuation then that would a completely different kettle of fish.
-
Restraint of trade. If they have it to spend, spend it. Bloody rules!
It always amazes me that that the most capitalist of countries, the USA, runs it's sports leagues on an almost communist basis. Revenue sharing, salary caps, new players sent to the teams that need them the most etc
-
I thought we lost £36.1 million just in one season? How are we going to stay within the limits over three seasons? Surely we're not expecting to make a massive profit from this season?
-
I thought we lost £36.1 million just in one season? How are we going to stay within the limits over three seasons? Surely we're not expecting to make a massive profit from this season?
I presume if we don’t go up there’s players that will be sold for big money. We’d get £60 mill for SJ and SJM. Can’t think of another club in our position that can say that. Just hope we don’t have to.
-
The stadium was on the books at 41m and they got an “ independent “ valuation of 80m and booked a 39mil profit by SALB.
The justification is that the new owner can use the stadium for events on the 330 days it is not in use by the club.
Now it he had paid 250 mil without a valuation then that would a completely different kettle of fish.
I wouldn't want us to go down the stadium sale route just to meet short term FFP needs, just in case the ownership goes sour. If there was a buy back clause at a fixed price then that would be more comforting.
-
I thought we lost £36.1 million just in one season? How are we going to stay within the limits over three seasons? Surely we're not expecting to make a massive profit from this season?
Has anyone seen the amount of compo relating to HS2 going through Bodymoor quantified. I wonder if this is a sizeable sum not in the ordinary budgets?
-
The Derby thing does seem a blatant attempt to get around the rules, to be fair. If they can do that then it makes a mockery of the whole rules.
It's really not a loophole of any sort. Sale and leaseback is standard business practice in the 'real world' and has actual economic consequences. Derby County no longer own their stadium. The fact that it's to another company owned by their chairman is neither here nor there.
Hypothetically, if he, or rather his company, was to sell the stadium back to Derby at a much reduced rate, would that be any sort of breach of FFP?
Also, not sure what the "real world" has to do with this. Most billionaire business owners can invest what they want without worrying that it might upset their competitors, so football is already ignoring business norms in applying such rules in the first place, isn't it?
Yes, if he then sold it back at a much lower rate, then the whole transaction would be viewed as "artificial" and not at arm's length market rates, which is supposed to be the key component of FFP. You're right about FFP being contrary to any sort of normal business behaviour, which is why as I've said before, I can't understand why it hasn't been challenged in law yet.
-
I get the same feeling about why no club has ever, as far as my limited knowledge extends, sued a player for failing to discharge the requirements of his contract with the club eg to attend training even if his front gates are jammed.
-
The stadium was on the books at 41m and they got an “ independent “ valuation of 80m and booked a 39mil profit by SALB.
The justification is that the new owner can use the stadium for events on the 330 days it is not in use by the club.
Now it he had paid 250 mil without a valuation then that would a completely different kettle of fish.
I wouldn't want us to go down the stadium sale route just to meet short term FFP needs, just in case the ownership goes sour. If there was a buy back clause at a fixed price then that would be more comforting.
Under the terms of the ACV the Trust organised then I dont think they can anyway but would have to read up on it.
-
I thought we lost £36.1 million just in one season? How are we going to stay within the limits over three seasons? Surely we're not expecting to make a massive profit from this season?
2016
FFP Loss of £26.3m
2017
FFP Loss of £5.7m
2018
FFP loss of £26.4m
Total FFP Loss of £58.4m
Allowable Loss of £61m
We're compliant by £2.6m
-
I get the same feeling about why no club has ever, as far as my limited knowledge extends, sued a player for failing to discharge the requirements of his contract with the club eg to attend training even if his front gates are jammed.
Completely different circumstances, but is Mutu the only player that has been sued for breach of contract - or indeed sued for any reason by their club?
-
I thought we lost £36.1 million just in one season? How are we going to stay within the limits over three seasons? Surely we're not expecting to make a massive profit from this season?
2016
FFP Loss of £26.3m
2017
FFP Loss of £5.7m
2018
FFP loss of £26.4m
Total FFP Loss of £58.4m
Allowable Loss of £61m
We're compliant by £2.6m
If we don't get promoted this season are allowable losses are reduced to £39 million.
BBC are reporting our losses for last season were £36.1 million. Is that incorrect?
-
I thought we lost £36.1 million just in one season? How are we going to stay within the limits over three seasons? Surely we're not expecting to make a massive profit from this season?
2016
FFP Loss of £26.3m
2017
FFP Loss of £5.7m
2018
FFP loss of £26.4m
Total FFP Loss of £58.4m
Allowable Loss of £61m
We're compliant by £2.6m
If we don't get promoted this season are allowable losses are reduced to £39 million.
BBC are reporting our losses for last season were £36.1 million. Is that incorrect?
Losses associated to FFP are different. For example, losses for academy spend is not accounted for.
-
I thought we lost £36.1 million just in one season? How are we going to stay within the limits over three seasons? Surely we're not expecting to make a massive profit from this season?
2016
FFP Loss of £26.3m
2017
FFP Loss of £5.7m
2018
FFP loss of £26.4m
Total FFP Loss of £58.4m
Allowable Loss of £61m
We're compliant by £2.6m
If we don't get promoted this season are allowable losses are reduced to £39 million.
BBC are reporting our losses for last season were £36.1 million. Is that incorrect?
Losses associated to FFP are different. For example, losses for academy spend is not accounted for.
Ah. Right.
So, if we don't get promoted this season, and our FFP losses are less than £4 million, we'll be ok.
Does anyone know the cut off date, for getting our figures right?
-
If we do not get promoted this season, Jack and the others out of contract will be moved on to balance the books. Jack, on the face of it, is a straight to the bottom line upside of whatever he goes for.
-
If we do not get promoted this season, Jack and the others out of contract will be moved on to balance the books. Jack, on the face of it, is a straight to the bottom line upside of whatever he goes for.
Correct as he is an academy graduate. Anything we get is pure 100% profit
-
Again, when do the figures have to match up?
Could we keep everybody until the next Jan transfer window, and then sell to balance the books?
-
Again, when do the figures have to match up?
Could we keep everybody until the next Jan transfer window, and then sell to balance the books?
I imagine that’d be a pretty risky strategy. The January window is not such a good trading time and if other clubs know we need to sell it could drive prices down & force us to sell more players.
-
Again, when do the figures have to match up?
Could we keep everybody until the next Jan transfer window, and then sell to balance the books?
I imagine that’d be a pretty risky strategy. The January window is not such a good trading time and if other clubs know we need to sell it could drive prices down & force us to sell more players.
I agree, to a certain extent. But isn't it already common knowledge that we'd be selling because we have to?
It would be nice to start next season on the front foot, and get a decent start, before selling the crown jewels. If that's even possible.
Of course we could always get promoted. Fingers crossed.
-
In the summer we would still have January though, & January is a tight window so the whole thing just gets more difficult I think.
There’s also a good chance of everyone being fit at the start of the season - we could go into January with injuries to players who we need to shift. That would have been the case this year if we had needed to seek Jack in January!
.....or injuries to other players could make us more reliant on players that we had hoped to move on.
-
Just read that the owners have given us another £22 million - are we heading towards an FFP fine?
-
Just read that the owners have given us another £22 million - are we heading towards an FFP fine?
A share issue though?
-
Just read that the owners have given us another £22 million - are we heading towards an FFP fine?
A share issue though?
There’s a limit to what the owners can contribute through share issues. According to the EFL site for 2015/16 it was £8m, so it’s probably more now but I’d guess not £22m.
-
Isn’t it £8m per shareholder.
-
There is no way that the league can stop someone giving money to the club ( unless of course the money is the proceeds of crime).
The way it is accounted is a different matter.
-
Although I've got the jist off FFP, i have to admit it still baffles me at times.
Was having a conversation with my lad about if we don't go up. We both reckon Jack and SJM will probably go. Jack £40m (buy out clause) SJM £25? (cost £3m). That would give us £62m profit. What portion of that could be reinvested in the team to stay compliant?
My guess would be £39m to keep us compliant with £23m to spend. Or is that way too easy 😯
-
Getting £65m for Grealish and McGinn is very optimistic I think - especially if other clubs know we need to sell to keep within FFP and that Jack wants/needs to leave for the sake of his career.
We will however save a pretty penny by offloading most of the players who are out of contract - Hutton, DeLaet, Jedinak, Whelan, Richards, Elphick, and Bunn. Other than Whelan, none of them are vital.
-
Cheers, bud.
I got the £65m simply from that I'd heard Jack has a £40 clause in his contract, and McGinn is surely worth £25m.
-
Notwithstanding the clause, if we don't go up we will need to sell him. Buying clubs will know this and I suspect we'd be lucky to get much more than £20-£25m.
Same if we sell McGinn really. Prob £15m tops.
They are both clearly worth more, but our circumstances would mean we'd be selling under duress.
-
Notwithstanding the clause, if we don't go up we will need to sell him. Buying clubs will know this and I suspect we'd be lucky to get much more than £20-£25m.
Same if we sell McGinn really. Prob £15m tops.
They are both clearly worth more, but our circumstances would mean we'd be selling under duress.
I think if the offers are around that then we just won't sell and they'll handle it. The current lot don't come across as the sort who'd be fucked around by someone like Levy. I reckon we'd be looking at £45m as the absolute minimum that those 2 will raise with £50-60m more likely.
-
Apparently Boro are going to attempt to sue Derby over breach of financial rules:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2019/05/24/exclusive-middlesbrough-sue-derby-alleged-breaches-offinancial/amp/
-
Just viewed this and I found it fascinating as I knew we were in trouble but never realised just how much trouble, real knife edge stuff:
-
I've just read that Sawiris is buying the ground and putting it into a separate company. Anyone else pick up on this?
-
It's speculation based on some changes in our details recorded at companies House
-
I've just read that Sawiris is buying the ground and putting it into a separate company. Anyone else pick up on this?
Why would we even need to do this with 170m guaranteed coming in over the next three years just from Sky even if we went straight back down?
-
I've just read that Sawiris is buying the ground and putting it into a separate company. Anyone else pick up on this?
Why would we even need to do this with 170m guaranteed coming in over the next three years just from Sky even if we went straight back down?
To invest a boat load of cash
-
No idea, but if anyone knows their way around ffp, it’s these three!
-
Soft transfer embargo?
-
I read that, what does it even mean?
-
Not sure but doesn’t sound good.
The difference in money between the 2 leagues is ridiculous to be honest.
-
Matt Lawton
Championship clubs are concerned that the Premier League will not impose a points deduction on Aston Villa if they are found to have breached profit and sustainability rules.
Villa, who were promoted to the top flight after beating Derby County in Monday's Championship play-off final at Wembley, are among a number of clubs — Derby included — currently operating under a soft transfer embargo while the English Football League continue to assess their P and S submission.
Officials at Villa Park have insisted they will be compliant with financial fair play regulations despite reports of heavy losses.
But Sportsmail understands high-level discussions are currently taking place between the EFL and the Premier League - discussions being led by the Football League's interim chair Debbie Jevans, amid concern that there could be lack of consistency in applying the appropriate sanctions.
In March an independent panel concluded that Birmingham City should be hit with a nine-point deduction by the EFL after incurring losses of nearly £48.8m between 2015 and 2018 — and therefore breaching the £39m three-year limit — and clubs would certainly like to see consistency should Villa also be found to be in breach.
But insiders believe poor communication between the EFL and the Premier League has led to 'a disconnect'.
'The rules are supposed to be aligned across the leagues but there is a concern that the interpretation of those rules is different,' said one source.
Sportsmail understands there would be a reluctance among senior Premier League officials to hit a newly-promoted club with a points deduction, and so making it all the more harder for them to survive in the top flight.
However, what concerns the clubs, and is likely to be the point being made by the EFL, is the message the Premier League will be delivering if they don't agree with a points deduction for a club that breaks financial rules to reach football's promised land with its television riches.
'The winner of the Championship play-off final lands a £170m jackpot so if the only punishment if you are then found guilty of breaching the regulations is a fine, you take that gamble,' said one club official. 'Because the worst that then happens, if you fail to get promoted, is you start the new Championship season with a points deduction.'
The dispute that has been raging for much of the season between Championship clubs is likely to remain on the agenda at next week's AGM in Portugal.
Reports last week suggested Middlesbrough have issued a legal letter to Derby in the belief a side that finished one point ahead of them, and in the play-offs, broke the rules when owner Mel Morris essentially bought the stadium with another company he also owns for what, at £80m, was double the value of what Pride Park was listed in the club's books as an asset.
It meant Derby were able to report a pre-tax profit of £14.6m and while the EFL might yet conclude the stadium purchase has been completed within the rules, Boro owner and chairman Steve Gibson has made no secret of the fact that he has a different view.
-
Why the fuck is their AGM in Portugal?!
-
How many points have Wolves and Bournemouth had deducted? None. The Small Heath comparison is a nonsense. They haven't been done for making excessive losses, they were deducted points for signing a player when under a transfer embargo, which we haven't done.
-
Steve Gibson really needs to find some worthwhile hobby over the summer.
Top tip: Don't employ shithouses like Tiny Penis as manager and spend £15 million on Britt Assbumbaclah.
-
Bournemouth went up before the new rules came into play.
-
We’ve sold the ground now.
-
We’ve sold the ground now.
Where have you got this from?
-
Right, so the outcome is that teams which have spent more money than they can afford are ok now, because awww...the rules have changed you guys. *shrug*
Sucks to be you.
FFP - financial fair play.
-
The rules were changed because the FL were fed up of clubs getting away with it. The new rules were posted on here a fair few times as they came into effect our first season down, as the big change was that the PL would work with the FL over clubs.
-
We’ve sold the ground now.
Because Sawiris became a person of significant control over NSWE Stadium Limited on 14th May. I assumed he had therefore bought it from Aston Villa Limited.
Where have you got this from?
-
So are we, or are we not, in breach of FFP? Can't be that fucking hard for the authorities to determine. We publish our figures every single year.
-
The rules were changed because the FL were fed up of clubs getting away with it. The new rules were posted on here a fair few times as they came into effect our first season down, as the big change was that the PL would work with the FL over clubs.
So... Wolves, then?
-
The rules were changed because the FL were fed up of clubs getting away with it. The new rules were posted on here a fair few times as they came into effect our first season down, as the big change was that the PL would work with the FL over clubs.
So... Wolves, then?
I have no idea if they breached them or not over the 3 year period.
-
We’ve sold the ground now.
Because Sawiris became a person of significant control over NSWE Stadium Limited on 14th May. I assumed he had therefore bought it from Aston Villa Limited.
Where have you got this from?
In fairness, the fact NSWE have set up a company called that does not in any way suggest we've actually sold the ground.
-
We’ve sold the ground now.
Because Sawiris became a person of significant control over NSWE Stadium Limited on 14th May. I assumed he had therefore bought it from Aston Villa Limited.
Where have you got this from?
In fairness, the fact NSWE have set up a company called that does not in any way suggest we've actually sold the ground.
Wasn't that done 15th May or around then? Maybe just a back up plan for if we didn't win the final?
-
The limit was £61m, not £39m.
-
http://www.financialfairplay.co.uk/financial-fair-play-explained.php
relevant bits about punishments
Crucially, this harmonisation of the rules comes with the blessing of the Premier League - so we shouldn’t see any repeat of the stand-offs that arose (and are still ongoing) with QPR and Leicester. Previously, the Premier League bosses refused to help the Football League collect the ‘Fair Play Tax’ fines for clubs that overspent but won promotion – this lack of support significantly undermined the Football League and severely impacted on the effectiveness of the Football League punishments.
Any punishment for breach of the rules will be determined by an independent panel (the ‘Fair Play Panel’).
But what are the potential punishments? Previously the Football League has only been able to either; fine promoted clubs (a fine the Premier League didn’t help them collect), or impose a transfer embargo for historic overspending (which always like a stable-door/horse scenario). With this change, a wide range of punishments are now available. Nothing is off the table; the Football League are now able to impose a points deduction during the current season, or demote a club from an automatic promotion position into the play-offs (or out of the play-offs altogether). Transfer embargoes are also available (with the earliest one potentially applying during the Summer 2017 Transfer window.
-
I’ll brick it when Purslow does. And nothing suggests to me he is concerned. Not saying we will lash out £200m on new players but from everything he’s said since promotion they are taking a very measured approach to the new financial reality at the club.
-
We've been trying to cooperate, unlike other clubs, for the last couple of seasons. I'd say we'll be fine.
-
Article appears to suggest that somebody such as Gibson is having a cry on the chance that we have breached FFP.
We say we haven't.
Balance is the EFL talking to the PL back, as PL do not appear to give a good fuck (shock).
How can we be under an embargo when we're not in their remit or when you cant register players for a few more days, I have no idea.
-
The limit was £61m, not £39m.
As I understand it, it's allowable losses over a three year period.
£35 million per year in the premiership, £13 million per year in the Championship.
So allowable losses for a relegated team would be:
£83 million in the first year ( 2 premier seasons + 1 championship)
then £61 million ( 1 premier season + 2 championship)
then £39 million ( 3 championship seasons)
So for us last year our limit was £61 million. Whereas Birmingham's limit has always been £39 million as they've not been in the premier league since err... 2011 ?!?
-
Your report financial year to year though, so we would be reporting on whatever our losses are post filing of annual returns until next February/March. It's just estimates until then, so the hard limit ought to be £61m as of now and £39m for the estimate. We've been regularly engaging with the EFL and surely now we can increase our estimate to include a minimum £93m additional income.
-
I tend to agree with the opinion that it's probably just Steve Gibson screaming at clouds.
of smog obviously
-
Is any other news outlet reporting us being under a soft transfer embargo? If it's true, I'd be a bit miffed at Purslow's consistent "we are fine" mantra.
-
Just read that Purslow and Xia are no longer Directors. Reshuffle on May 15th as part of the NWSE thing.
-
Hopefully this is just more of Gibbo's sour grapery - I thought any attempt to 'investigate' us had been thwarted at the recent League meeting at Forest. If not, the hierarchy are going to want to revise 'the sky's the limit' statement.
-
I wouldn’t worry about this unless there is a definitive statement from the club. At the moment this is just panic from a single media source with no quotes from any sources, and our management have clearly stated and can be quoted as saying that there are no issues at this stage. Let’s see how this pans out over the next few weeks before we all start questioning and panicking.
-
Why the fuck is their AGM in Portugal?!
My thoughts exactly.
Flying the board of the football league out to Portugal for a fucking meeting hardly gives them the moral high ground on financial prudence!
-
Just read that Purslow and Xia are no longer Directors. Reshuffle on May 15th as part of the NWSE thing.
Where have you read that?
Edit: that's the NWSE Stadium Ltd subsidiary.
-
Just read that Purslow and Xia are no longer Directors. Reshuffle on May 15th as part of the NWSE thing.
Where have you read that?
Edit: that's the NWSE Stadium Ltd subsidiary.
Newsnow headlines mate.
-
Just read that Purslow and Xia are no longer Directors. Reshuffle on May 15th as part of the NWSE thing.
Where have you read that?
Edit: that's the NWSE Stadium Ltd subsidiary.
It’s on the Meaning Evil website too
-
Purslow is still Chief Exec of RECON and the AVFC subsidiaries, just not apart of NWSE Stadium Ltd.
-
Why would Boro send a legal letter to Derby and not the FL about the issue?
-
Just read that Purslow and Xia are no longer Directors. Reshuffle on May 15th as part of the NWSE thing.
Where have you read that?
Edit: that's the NWSE Stadium Ltd subsidiary.
Loads of changes and comings and goings made on companies house listings
-
I reckon thete's enough on this to get the noses excited, only to have their hopes dashed again.
-
Was having similar thoughts LeeB!
-
Why would Boro send a legal letter to Derby and not the FL about the issue?
Tbh, given what an eejit Steve Gibson is, this is the most believable part of the article for me...
-
Would be good if the club can quash this (hopefully non-)story quickly. First thing I thought was that we wouldn't be letting any players go if we were operating under some kind of embargo, and AA has left the building.
-
Albert was out of contract wasn't he?
EDIT: Jut saw he had a year left.
-
Purslow has all along seemed very confident that we are not in any danger of breaching FFP. I know he would hardly be shouting about problems if we had any, but neither would he be being so categoric about there being no problems.
I think it is shit stirring from Gibson, that they have to pay lip service to but will come to nothing (as we have not breached the rules). Wasn't Purslow involved in drafting the rules? Can't see him being wrong on them.
-
Guess he's just upset that for a second year running they've not "smashed the league" as he said they would. Diddums.
-
Are we actually under embargo or is that bullshit? Even if there is doubt hanging over us this could severely delay our plans to get players in. And we need shitloads of players in.
-
Is any other news outlet reporting us being under a soft transfer embargo? If it's true, I'd be a bit miffed at Purslow's consistent "we are fine" mantra.
That probably means something like we can't buy anyone until the PL window opens.
-
Is any other news outlet reporting us being under a soft transfer embargo? If it's true, I'd be a bit miffed at Purslow's consistent "we are fine" mantra.
That probably means something like we can't buy anyone until the PL window opens.
It means we can’t buy any soft players, so we should be able to get Mings in.
-
Isn't that tomorrow? June 1st?
-
The window opened in the middle of May.
-
Registrations are kept until 1st June though.
Guess we will see, but how we can be embargoed when we're not in the EFL, who knows.
-
Think it is 1st July to register players. If you look on BBC website for transfers several have an asterisk with "to take place on 1st July" underneath.
-
Isn't there a formal cut off point for being in the EFL / Prem for administration purposes. I.e. we wouldn't have switched all our admin to premier league once the full time whistle went on Monday surely.
-
I see the Meaning Evil has jumped on the bandwagon and rehashed the DM's story. Now other clubs are "furious" with us! Where's their evidence to back this up??
Villa need to make some sort of response to these accusations.
-
I see the Meaning Evil has jumped on the bandwagon and rehashed the DM's story. Now other clubs are "furious" with us! Where's their evidence to back this up??
Villa need to make some sort of response to these accusations.
"Fuck off you bitter twats!"
-
Villa need to make some sort of response to these accusations.
Something like this.
(https://media.giphy.com/media/1vZaDKwvQXvuYGMw0l/giphy.gif)
-
Our embargo is as severe as Wolves' was when they went up.
-
I think I'm more inclined to take Purslows word rather than Gregg fucking Evans's
-
Wolves lost £57m in their last championship season. How can we possibly be punished if they weren’t? That assumes we’ve even broken it.
-
Why the fuck is their AGM in Portugal?!
My thoughts exactly.
Flying the board of the football league out to Portugal for a fucking meeting hardly gives them the moral high ground on financial prudence!
Pretty sure it’d be cheaper to stump up the cost to charter a few flights and then be paying local prices for three or fours days than doing the same in the UK, unless they’re going full Alan Partridge.
Morally, ethically, from an environmental perspective I agree.
-
Our financial year end is the 31 May, ie today. We then get 10 months to prepare the accounts. I can't see how we can really be held to account for this season's results until we've had time to prepare them.
-
Pretty sure it’d be cheaper to stump up the cost to charter a few flights and then be paying local prices for three or fours days than doing the same in the UK, unless they’re going full Alan Partridge.
"What part of Birmingham are you from?"
"No Alan, I'm actually from South Africa."
-
Our financial year end is the 31 May, ie today. We then get 10 months to prepare the accounts. I can't see how we can really be held to account for this season's results until we've had time to prepare them.
Especially with the likelihood of Post Balance Sheet Events?
-
I wonder whether this 'soft embargo' became a thing shortly after Pulis managed to convince Gibson that Boro had achieved 'soft promotion' by spending most of the season in the top six?
-
Our financial year end is the 31 May, ie today. We then get 10 months to prepare the accounts. I can't see how we can really be held to account for this season's results until we've had time to prepare them.
Especially with the likelihood of Post Balance Sheet Events?
That's hard to credit.
-
What’s the difference between a soft embargo and a hard embargo? Surely embargo means embargo. It’s all getting a bit too Brexit for my liking.
-
Soft embargos enable you to pick up frees and pay them about 600k a year. You can’t pay fees for players, also you need to be able to show you’re working towards being more sustainable.
-
So everything we’re reading so far about signing players and paying fees suggests that this soft embargo thing is a load of media speculative nonsense.
-
Either that or we’re doing a blose and telling the league to F off I’d go for the former though!
-
Soft embargos enable you to pick up frees and pay them about 600k a year. You can’t pay fees for players, also you need to be able to show you’re working towards being more sustainable.
I think getting promoted ticks that last box!
-
Isn’t this story from the Daily fucking Mail? I rest my case. If John Percy reports it I’ll take some notice
-
#fucktheffpfuckers
-
So after a number of reports that we were set to be roasted at the big EFL chin-wag in Portugal on Thur/Fri - nothing been reported about it today? Should be an onus on the league to let fans know what's going on if their clubs are being discussed in the same context as penalties for bullshit. I don't think anything will come of it but at the same time I'd appreciate confirmation of that, if only to shut the likes of Steve Gibson the fuck up.
-
Interesting article on the ownership of Southampton, Mr GAO a Chinese businessman with some questions over source of funds and ownership structures.
Has told the club they need to be self sufficient.
Brings back a few memories.
-
Interesting article on the ownership of Southampton, Mr GAO a Chinese businessman with some questions over source of funds and ownership structures.
Has told the club they need to be self sufficient.
Brings back a few memories.
Good, I hope they go the same way we nearly did.
I can't stand Southampton, they must be close to being banned on environmental grounds as they're so plastic.
-
Hard to see how they culd be any more sustainable given the players they've sold in the last few years.
-
Interesting article on the ownership of Southampton, Mr GAO a Chinese businessman with some questions over source of funds and ownership structures.
Has told the club they need to be self sufficient.
Brings back a few memories.
Good, I hope they go the same way we nearly did.
I can't stand Southampton, they must be close to being banned on environmental grounds as they're so plastic.
Isn't their owner so crooked even the Premier League tried to block his takeover a couple of years ago? Takes some doing, that.
I didn't really have anything much against them as a club until five minutes after the whistle blew on the playoff final when my elder son's stepdad - a Southampton supporter - rang to congratulate me then in the same breath said he thought we'd be immediately relegated again. My most fervent desire now this season (other than winning the league, obviously) is to take six points from them, thrashing them mercilessly at Villa Park and whatever their plastic stadium is called nowadays, whilst seeing them implode, go into administration, be docked points, get relegated and then go bust, with Matt LeTissier snotting live on telly from his big wonky nose, the soapy twat.
-
Hard to see how they culd be any more sustainable given the players they've sold in the last few years.
Exactly.
-
Interesting article on the ownership of Southampton, Mr GAO a Chinese businessman with some questions over source of funds and ownership structures.
Has told the club they need to be self sufficient.
Brings back a few memories.
Good, I hope they go the same way we nearly did.
I can't stand Southampton, they must be close to being banned on environmental grounds as they're so plastic.
Isn't their owner so crooked even the Premier League tried to block his takeover a couple of years ago? Takes some doing, that.
I didn't really have anything much against them as a club until five minutes after the whistle blew on the playoff final when my elder son's stepdad - a Southampton supporter - rang to congratulate me then in the same breath said he thought we'd be immediately relegated again. My most fervent desire now this season (other than winning the league, obviously) is to take six points from them, thrashing them mercilessly at Villa Park and whatever their plastic stadium is called nowadays, whilst seeing them implode, go into administration, be docked points, get relegated and then go bust, with Matt LeTissier snotting live on telly from his big wonky nose, the soapy twat.
Stop sitting on the fence.
-
The PL got interested when a Chinese Government owned entity bought a stake in his Chinese Holding company as concerns Southampton could be owned by China. Then pops up a HK company which he claims is the owner via an offshore co which he is beneficial owner of and the PL back off.
It’s pretty obvious that the PL is way out of its depth when dealing with this stuff, but as long as the money keeps flowing in I suppose.
At some point though it is obvious that they will get tripped up by Money Laundering legislators.
-
All sounds perfectly legitimate, eh?
-
Dear Premier League
Can you fix it for me for us to have Southampton away in October half term week as I will be on the Isle of Wight.
Cheers
Chelts
-
I'll be on the IoW then as well ;-)
-
And if we arent playing them you can fetch the first round!
-
I'll be in Pedmore tomorrow as well !!
-
I dont finish in Brum until 5pm but The Crabmill or Foley look appealing!
-
I dont finish in Brum until 5pm but The Crabmill or Foley look appealing!
Tied up with family, Baggies by the way, and flying off to Portugal so will have to wait till you're on the island in October.
-
I dont finish in Brum until 5pm but The Crabmill or Foley look appealing!
Tied up with family, Baggies by the way, and flying off to Portugal so will have to wait till you're on the island in October.
Done. We are staying in Shanklin.
-
As posted from someone who was at the FCG meeting last night -
Positive news coming out of last night’s FCG meeting with Christian Purslow. Mr P saying that the EFL have now confirmed we are compliant with the Profit and Sustainability rules (FFP) 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
He’s asked the EFL to release an official statement to this effect. Gonna be some unhappy journos around when that happens......😃💪🏻😃
Away Scheme in Current Format to Be Scrapped
-
As posted from someone who was at the FCG meeting last night -
Positive news coming out of last night’s FCG meeting with Christian Purslow. Mr P saying that the EFL have now confirmed we are compliant with the Profit and Sustainability rules (FFP) 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
He’s asked the EFL to release an official statement to this effect. Gonna be some unhappy journos around when that happens......😃💪🏻😃
Away Scheme in Current Format to Be Scrapped
Great news, assuming it's true. Will await that official statement with baited breath so we can get on with being a successful PL club and Steve Gibson can curdle away in silence.
-
Interesting news about the away scheme. Happy enough to take my £40 off me when we were skint, but now everyone wants to go to again it’s scrapped. As long as my attendance record transfers it will be fine, but when they’re selling £6k trips to watch preseason friendlies I expect we will be seeing the return of the VIP away package for the bigger games again.
-
As posted from someone who was at the FCG meeting last night -
Positive news coming out of last night’s FCG meeting with Christian Purslow. Mr P saying that the EFL have now confirmed we are compliant with the Profit and Sustainability rules (FFP) 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
He’s asked the EFL to release an official statement to this effect. Gonna be some unhappy journos around when that happens......😃💪🏻😃
Away Scheme in Current Format to Be Scrapped
Can we get the Samaritans number posted on SHA and whatever poses as the Bitters web site
There will be some that just will not be able to cope with this news :)
-
I dont finish in Brum until 5pm but The Crabmill or Foley look appealing!
Tied up with family, Baggies by the way, and flying off to Portugal so will have to wait till you're on the island in October.
Done. We are staying in Shanklin.
I’m in Ryde a couple of miles from the ferry!
Give us a shout when you’re about 👍
-
As posted from someone who was at the FCG meeting last night -
Positive news coming out of last night’s FCG meeting with Christian Purslow. Mr P saying that the EFL have now confirmed we are compliant with the Profit and Sustainability rules (FFP) 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
He’s asked the EFL to release an official statement to this effect. Gonna be some unhappy journos around when that happens......😃💪🏻😃
Away Scheme in Current Format to Be Scrapped
Can we get the Samaritans number posted on SHA and whatever poses as the Bitters web site
There will be some that just will not be able to cope with this news :)
We've just given the B-lose £4 million when they needed it most. Bailing them out as we did with the compo for their duff manager in 2011.
We're great when it comes to needy causes.
You'd think they'd show some gratitude.
-
I dont finish in Brum until 5pm but The Crabmill or Foley look appealing!
Tied up with family, Baggies by the way, and flying off to Portugal so will have to wait till you're on the island in October.
Done. We are staying in Shanklin.
I’m in Ryde a couple of miles from the ferry!
Give us a shout when you’re about 👍
I spent the first ten years of my life living in Ryde. Most of my family still lives on the island. I still love it.
-
I dont finish in Brum until 5pm but The Crabmill or Foley look appealing!
Tied up with family, Baggies by the way, and flying off to Portugal so will have to wait till you're on the island in October.
Done. We are staying in Shanklin.
I’m in Ryde a couple of miles from the ferry!
Give us a shout when you’re about 👍
Cool. Portsmouth to Fishbourne ferry and we are in a lodge in Landguard. I will shout up nearer the time to arrange a beer and we might have a game to squeeze in as well.
-
I dont finish in Brum until 5pm but The Crabmill or Foley look appealing!
Tied up with family, Baggies by the way, and flying off to Portugal so will have to wait till you're on the island in October.
Done. We are staying in Shanklin.
I’m in Ryde a couple of miles from the ferry!
Give us a shout when you’re about 👍
Cool. Portsmouth to Fishbourne ferry and we are in a lodge in Landguard. I will shout up nearer the time to arrange a beer and we might have a game to squeeze in as well.
Sounds like a plan. I’m in Pedmore now with the France Norway ladies game on before flying to Faro in the morning.
-
I am on the sofa in Pedmore with a glass of wine and Deadliest Catch on the telly. Bedecked in dressing gown.
-
I am on the sofa in Pedmore with a glass of wine and Deadliest Catch on the telly. Bedecked in dressing gown.
Pass me the mind bleach.
-
Oh yes, there is nothing to worry about FFP wise either. All sorted.
-
Oh yes, there is nothing to worry about FFP wise either. All sorted.
Have we got any actual evidence of that? I read somewhere we had asked the EFL to put that in writing?
-
Oh yes, there is nothing to worry about FFP wise either. All sorted.
Have we got any actual evidence of that? I read somewhere we had asked the EFL to put that in writing?
I remember reading somebody saying that we should ask the EFL to put it in writing.
-
I think MOMS mentioned it after the FFG meeting - that we were going to ask for the EFL to issue a statement.
-
They could make a statement themselves on the club website. If it's true, the EFL can't complain.
-
Oh yes, there is nothing to worry about FFP wise either. All sorted.
Have we got any actual evidence of that? I read somewhere we had asked the EFL to put that in writing?
Didn’t they ask for that so everyone stopped talking about it and just make it official?
-
Point is, the EFL hasn't said anything, and neither has the club. So we haven't a clue and until put in writing it's hard to trust.
I do get the impression they are quietly embarrassed by the likes of Gibson but so long as he keeps pointing out he's the only one trying to follow their rules, it's difficult for them to tell him to shut up.
-
Point is, the EFL hasn't said anything, and neither has the club. So we haven't a clue and until put in writing it's hard to trust.
I do get the impression they are quietly embarrassed by the likes of Gibson but so long as he keeps pointing out he's the only one trying to follow their rules, it's difficult for them to tell him to shut up.
I see he’s had another moan today, he really is making a tit of himself. I guess the problem is he believed the pre-season pundits last season that they were favourites to top the table and in his head the only reason they weren’t is because everybody else broke the rules! Somebody needs to tell him that a certain Tiny Penis might have been the problem
-
Point is, the EFL hasn't said anything, and neither has the club. So we haven't a clue and until put in writing it's hard to trust.
I do get the impression they are quietly embarrassed by the likes of Gibson but so long as he keeps pointing out he's the only one trying to follow their rules, it's difficult for them to tell him to shut up.
I see he’s had another moan today, he really is making a tit of himself. I guess the problem is he believed the pre-season pundits last season that they were favourites to top the table and in his head the only reason they weren’t is because everybody else broke the rules! Somebody needs to tell him that a certain Tiny Penis might have been the problem
Spot on, he seemed to think they'd walk it despite not signing anyone decent. Even their loans were a bit shite.
-
At the end of the day we pulled ourselves into the premiership lifeboat so we have nothing to worry about.
-
I started this thread 12 months ago. 1000 replies later we are promoted and back in the Premier League. FFP can kiss my arse.
-
When Cuntiano Dildonaldo went to Juventus all of the "rules" of FFP were exposed...along with Mancunter Cunty failing to win a Cuntions League trophy.
There will be a major re-think of how to favour the UEFA darlings again....
-
I started this thread 12 months ago. 1000 replies later we are promoted and back in the Premier League. FFP can kiss my arse.
You fuckin tell 'em AJ!
-
According to Mr Purslow we are compliant with the rules for 2018-19. Subject to the final audit of the accounts which is standard practice.
-
According to Mr Purslow we are compliant with the rules for 2018-19. Subject to the final audit of the accounts which is standard practice.
That will piss off Gibson at Boro!
-
Is this bad? https://offthepitch.com/a/new-filing-reveals-aston-villa-sold-stadium-owners-5-weeks-ago
-
I am sure people will be up in arms about it.
Nas and Wes own the club and all it’s assets anyway, so if it’s a way to generate money, what does it matter if another arm of their business is the holding company?
Anything that fucks off the Middlesboro owner even more is ok by me.
-
Selling the ground is better than having to sell Grealish
-
Also, in what universe is VP worth £25m less than Derby's ground?
-
Also, in what universe is VP worth £25m less than Derby's ground?
The land value is probably right. Theirs is in the middle of prime commercial land, ours isn't.
-
Ah, fair enough.
-
Has anyone seen this article in the Times? I don't know how to get full access.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/aston-villa-facing-investigation-after-stadium-sale-0tcrzjl7b
-
Has anyone seen this article in the Times? I don't know how to get full access.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/aston-villa-facing-investigation-after-stadium-sale-0tcrzjl7b
This is a good site for dodging paywalls: https://outline.com/
-
Thanks.
Also, apologies, I should have realised that I'm never the first person to spot anything - I see this came up on the Villa Park thread 24 hours ago.
-
If the new White fart lane cost a rumoured £1billion then surely at £56million the home of a team that actually have experience of being European Champions is, if anything, undervalued.
-
I don't think the valuation of £56.7 million is based on how much it would cost to build a football stadium of that size, you'd have no chance of building a Villa Park for that.
It's based on how much the land would fetch if sold to developers.
This may be wrong, someone who understands these things will be able to advise.
-
No disrespect to anyone on H&V but if I need any advice on anything relating to Villa and FFP I go onto the Small Heath Alliance website. I think they can even tell you exactly how much we spent on paper clips and envelopes in the last financial year.
-
My house has a footprint of ≈330 ft², no parking, shared access across the garden, and it's not even in Brum. It's apparently worth £170k. That valuation seems reasonable.
-
I don't think the valuation of £56.7 million is based on how much it would cost to build a football stadium of that size, you'd have no chance of building a Villa Park for that.
It's based on how much the land would fetch if sold to developers.
This may be wrong, someone who understands these things will be able to advise.
Yes, fair value is what somebody would pay in an arm's length transaction. Some idiot Brizzle fan on Twitter has been trying to tell me it's the same as valuing a house. It isn't.
-
I don't think the valuation of £56.7 million is based on how much it would cost to build a football stadium of that size, you'd have no chance of building a Villa Park for that.
It's based on how much the land would fetch if sold to developers.
This may be wrong, someone who understands these things will be able to advise.
Yes, fair value is what somebody would pay in an arm's length transaction. Some idiot Brizzle fan on Twitter has been trying to tell me it's the same as valuing a house. It isn't.
It probably is if you have a house and garden the size of Villa Park and the car parks around it plus any other land we own. ;)
-
What a nothing story yesterday being circulated by some reputable news sources (and some not so reputable). The likes of the Times should really know better. There is more chance of us winning the Premier League than being punished for fairly valuing our biggest asset and selling it to a pair of businessmen. We're talking about a league that sold TV rights for 4 BILLION pounds and has no problem with Leicester City valuing Harry frigging Maguire higher than £70m - far in excessive of how we valued the VP land asset. The whole game is about generating silly amounts of money so it would be the height of hypocrisy for them to "investigate" Villa for generating £50 million to cover costs and quite frankly it's not worth the time it would take to do so.
-
If our FFP "issues" occurred when we were in the EFL, under EFL FFP rules, and our solution was accepted by the EFL, I don't see how the PL has any jurisdiction to pick us up on anything. It smacks of bullshit to me.
-
Not sure if he posts on here but one of the Yorkshire Villa lot did a good thread on this on Twatter yesterday. In summary it’s bullshit by the Times and any view the EPL want to take on it can’t be until they review next seasons books and even then as Risso says it’s as simple as proving your fair value process.
-
I am pretty sure that with the business and sporting knowledge and experience of our owners, the Premier League money and the expertise of Christian Purslow despite some people seeming to have it in for us we will be fine when it comes to FFP. Which will be a huge disappointment to those trying to stir things up.
-
I think this whole story comes down to a misunderstanding. I seem to remember Leicester and/or Bournemouth and/or QPR all going through a situation where they failed FFP in the championship but weren't punished because there was no collaboration between the 2 leagues and after the last of them there was an agreement reached. I suspect that, as part of that agreement, bothe the EFL and EPL agreed to do independent checks on promoted and relegated teams and this is just a case of them completing that process, nothing will come of it but it makes for good headlines for one of the newspapers to post nonsense about us.
-
Last time we were in the Premier League, the stadium and land were valued at over £80m, so we've clearly not pushed things to the absolute limits in terms of current valuation.
-
Not sure if he posts on here but one of the Yorkshire Villa lot did a good thread on this on Twatter yesterday. In summary it’s bullshit by the Times and any view the EPL want to take on it can’t be until they review next seasons books and even then as Risso says it’s as simple as proving your fair value process.
Agree
I think "the Yorkshire villa lot" is one guy by the way
He's excellent on ffp. His analysis over the last year has been spot on. He predicted this sort of deal as the only way we could comply
-
My understanding of accounts is basic so bear with me.
This is the sale of a fixed asset and I assume had a value on the balance sheet.
Therefore a sale is essentially a conversion of equity into cash. The profit element for the purposes of FFP would only come in on the amount raised above book value.
So my questions are :-
How much profit was actually made?
Is this more to do with cashflow/summer transfers (and if so the FFP rumblings shouldn't matter)?
-
Do I understand the Premier League looking into this? Yes.
Do I anticipate a problem? No.
-
My understanding of accounts is basic so bear with me.
This is the sale of a fixed asset and I assume had a value on the balance sheet.
Therefore a sale is essentially a conversion of equity into cash. The profit element for the purposes of FFP would only come in on the amount raised above book value.
So my questions are :-
How much profit was actually made?
Is this more to do with cashflow/summer transfers (and if so the FFP rumblings shouldn't matter)?
See Risso post above, the purchase price over and above the book value will be treated as profit.
The most important part will Be FFP compliance but as this is real money it will be used to fund cash flow.
-
That's what I thought.
So, the assets were valued at £80m 3 years ago, that means that unless the stadium was very much a minority of the total assets/land then there's not a lot of profit in the sale for the purposes of FFP (but maybe they only needed a small amount to meet the regulations?).
Not that I think it's a big deal btw - just curious.
-
Without the Balance Sheet in front of me I am guessing you are referring to Net Assets or Net Worth = Total Assets less Total Liabilities.
-
The amount paid appears to be the exact amount we lost last season if the guesstimate numbers are correct. Fuck it. There is nothing anyone can argue based on book value so this thread can now disappear quietly. I presume it has caused a meltdown elsewhere mind.
-
Can we send this thread over to the noses? It will be a wonderful story, full of laughs and hope and hilarity that ends as a fucking nightmare for them.
-
That's what I thought.
So, the assets were valued at £80m 3 years ago, that means that unless the stadium was very much a minority of the total assets/land then there's not a lot of profit in the sale for the purposes of FFP (but maybe they only needed a small amount to meet the regulations?).
Not that I think it's a big deal btw - just curious.
The stadium and land were valued at £80m 3 years ago, then we were relegated and there was an impairment review, and it was written down to just over £40m. So I reckon there's round about a £15m boost to profit, ad the whole proceeds amount as a cashflow boost. On paper, anyway.
-
The owners have just put another £30m in by issuing shares:
https://twitter.com/KieranMaguire/status/1148581195187441664
-
The owners have just put another £30m in by issuing shares:
https://twitter.com/KieranMaguire/status/1148581195187441664
The owners have put in another £40m into the club today apparently - maybe the sky is the limit.
Come on chaps is it 30 or 40?😊
-
A roll of cash they found tucked into their socks.
-
The owners have just put another £30m in by issuing shares:
https://twitter.com/KieranMaguire/status/1148581195187441664
The owners have put in another £40m into the club today apparently - maybe the sky is the limit.
Come on chaps is it 30 or 40?😊
It is 41,666,667 shares at £0.72 each - £30m.
-
Aren't Recon Tony Xia's bunch? Isn't this just him selling a bit more of his stake as was always likely to happen?
-
No, but it dillutes his holding further by issuing further shares he cannot buy. He must be under 10% now.
-
No, but it dillutes his holding further by issuing further shares he cannot buy. He must be under 10% now.
Unless he's bought some of them, obvs.
-
That's Bale's wages covered for a year then.
-
No, but it dillutes his holding further by issuing further shares he cannot buy. He must be under 10% now.
Unless he's bought some of them, obvs.
We (Xia) still have to pay an additional few million to Randy Lerner based on our promotion. That may explain the £30m. The other obvious reason for dropping it in the bank account is we won't receive our PL millions until sometime next year. These new players' clubs require payments.
-
No, but it dillutes his holding further by issuing further shares he cannot buy. He must be under 10% now.
Unless he's bought some of them, obvs.
We (Xia) still have to pay an additional few million to Randy Lerner based on our promotion. That may explain the £30m. The other obvious reason for dropping it in the bank account is we won't receive our PL millions until sometime next year. These new players' clubs require payments.
If there is another 30m due to Randy as part of the purchase, it won't be coming through the club, it'll be coming from the new owners hence no need for this jiggery pokery.
-
That's Bale's wages covered for a year then.
#welcomeGarethHale
(https://alchetron.com/cdn/gareth-hale-4cd37647-1f0a-44f4-aad8-1b3e1cc4b79-resize-750.jpeg)
-
That's Bale's wages covered for a year then.
#welcomeGarethHale
(https://alchetron.com/cdn/gareth-hale-4cd37647-1f0a-44f4-aad8-1b3e1cc4b79-resize-750.jpeg)
Poor footballer far too reliant on Pace.
-
That's Bale's wages covered for a year then.
#welcomeGarethHale
(https://alchetron.com/cdn/gareth-hale-4cd37647-1f0a-44f4-aad8-1b3e1cc4b79-resize-750.jpeg)
Poor footballer far too reliant on Pace.
👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
-
No, but it dillutes his holding further by issuing further shares he cannot buy. He must be under 10% now.
Unless he's bought some of them, obvs.
More chance of him buying decent shoes.
-
No, but it dillutes his holding further by issuing further shares he cannot buy. He must be under 10% now.
Unless he's bought some of them, obvs.
More chance of him buying decent shoes.
I think I saw on Twatter earlier someone say he’s now diluted to something like 13.5%.
-
No, but it dillutes his holding further by issuing further shares he cannot buy. He must be under 10% now.
Unless he's bought some of them, obvs.
More chance of him buying decent shoes.
I think I saw on Twatter earlier someone say he’s now diluted to something like 13.5%.
Wow, he must be tiny by now.
-
No, but it dillutes his holding further by issuing further shares he cannot buy. He must be under 10% now.
Unless he's bought some of them, obvs.
More chance of him buying decent shoes.
I think I saw on Twatter earlier someone say he’s now diluted to something like 13.5%.
Wow, he must be tiny by now.
Chortle.
-
No, but it dillutes his holding further by issuing further shares he cannot buy. He must be under 10% now.
Unless he's bought some of them, obvs.
More chance of him buying decent shoes.
I think I saw on Twatter earlier someone say he’s now diluted to something like 13.5%.
Wow, he must be tiny by now.
Tiny Xia?
-
No, he's just far away.
-
That's Bale's wages covered for a year then.
#welcomeGarethHale
(https://alchetron.com/cdn/gareth-hale-4cd37647-1f0a-44f4-aad8-1b3e1cc4b79-resize-750.jpeg)
Poor footballer far too reliant on Pace.
You win!
-
That's Bale's wages covered for a year then.
#welcomeGarethHale
(https://alchetron.com/cdn/gareth-hale-4cd37647-1f0a-44f4-aad8-1b3e1cc4b79-resize-750.jpeg)
Poor footballer far too reliant on Pace.
as new signing shirt stretches go, that’s the best of all
-
I see Man Citeh have escaped a transfer ban for breaching FIFA rules on transfers & registration of players under age of 18. A measly £315k fine instead which will obviously dent their bank balance. Fucking joke - a 10 point deduction would've been far more severe.
-
I see Man Citeh have escaped a transfer ban for breaching FIFA rules on transfers & registration of players under age of 18. A measly £315k fine instead which will obviously dent their bank balance. Fucking joke - a 10 point deduction would've been far more severe.
A £100bn fine would be nice. Pay within seven days or The Etihad is bulldozed 8)
-
I see Man Citeh have escaped a transfer ban for breaching FIFA rules on transfers & registration of players under age of 18. A measly £315k fine instead which will obviously dent their bank balance. Fucking joke - a 10 point deduction would've been far more severe.
A £100bn fine would be nice. Pay within seven days or The Etihad is bulldozed 8)
Silly thing is they could probably pay it! A £315k fine is hardly a deterrent to Citeh
-
Sheikh Mansour, citeh's owner is worth at least £17 billion and the family fortune is estimated at $1 trillion.....
-
I see Man Citeh have escaped a transfer ban for breaching FIFA rules on transfers & registration of players under age of 18. A measly £315k fine instead which will obviously dent their bank balance. Fucking joke - a 10 point deduction would've been far more severe.
Any explanation as to why they've escaped a transfer ban which is what Chelsea received for the exact same offense?
Unbelievable when you think about it. This level of preferential treatment of moneyed clubs doesn't happen in any other sport.
-
I see Man Citeh have escaped a transfer ban for breaching FIFA rules on transfers & registration of players under age of 18. A measly £315k fine instead which will obviously dent their bank balance. Fucking joke - a 10 point deduction would've been far more severe.
Any explanation as to why they've escaped a transfer ban which is what Chelsea received for the exact same offense?
Unbelievable when you think about it. This level of preferential treatment of moneyed clubs doesn't happen in any other sport.
Man City it's the first time they've been punished, Chelsea it's the 2nd.
-
I thought Citeh had been fined before for breaching FFP?
-
They are currently under investigation by UEFA over FFP, and a couple of years ago the Premier League fined them and also banned them from signing academy players for a couple of years.
-
I'm just repeating something I read a few days ago but I should've said Fifa punishments.
Looking at the cases it seems Chelsea's breeches were far more serious than Man City.
-
I'm just repeating something I read a few days ago but I should've said Fifa punishments.
Looking at the cases it seems Chelsea's breeches were far more serious than Man City.
Were they larger? More soiled?
-
I'm just repeating something I read a few days ago but I should've said Fifa punishments.
Looking at the cases it seems Chelsea's breeches were far more serious than Man City.
Were they larger? More soiled?
Maybe Citeh were let off for being too big for their breeches.
-
I see Man Citeh have escaped a transfer ban for breaching FIFA rules on transfers & registration of players under age of 18. A measly £315k fine instead which will obviously dent their bank balance. Fucking joke - a 10 point deduction would've been far more severe.
Any explanation as to why they've escaped a transfer ban which is what Chelsea received for the exact same offense?
Unbelievable when you think about it. This level of preferential treatment of moneyed clubs doesn't happen in any other sport.
Man City it's the first time they've been punished, Chelsea it's the 2nd.
No, Man City were fined £49m by UEFA in 2014 for breaching FFP rules, and had their squad numbers capped. They are anything but squeaky clean. A 10 point deduction would hurt them far more.
-
Them getting a 10 point deduction and still winning the league with Liverpool second would have been very, very, very, entertaining.
-
I see Man Citeh have escaped a transfer ban for breaching FIFA rules on transfers & registration of players under age of 18. A measly £315k fine instead which will obviously dent their bank balance. Fucking joke - a 10 point deduction would've been far more severe.
Any explanation as to why they've escaped a transfer ban which is what Chelsea received for the exact same offense?
Unbelievable when you think about it. This level of preferential treatment of moneyed clubs doesn't happen in any other sport.
Man City it's the first time they've been punished, Chelsea it's the 2nd.
No, Man City were fined £49m by UEFA in 2014 for breaching FFP rules, and had their squad numbers capped. They are anything but squeaky clean. A 10 point deduction would hurt them far more.
I'm not sure what an FFP fine has to do with exploitation of minors though, which is what this is all about. Given Man City are the only big club to have been investigated and not given a transfer ban I think it's fairly safe to say that this isn't 'big club bias' but rather than each case has been handled on merit and this one is towards the lower end.
-
My point is the cheating and trying to gain an advantage contrary to the rules.
-
Nicked one of our best youngsters too.
The compensation is a joke, the authorities should also add a % of any future transfer to it.
-
I see Man Citeh have escaped a transfer ban for breaching FIFA rules on transfers & registration of players under age of 18. A measly £315k fine instead which will obviously dent their bank balance. Fucking joke - a 10 point deduction would've been far more severe.
Any explanation as to why they've escaped a transfer ban which is what Chelsea received for the exact same offense?
Unbelievable when you think about it. This level of preferential treatment of moneyed clubs doesn't happen in any other sport.
Man City it's the first time they've been punished, Chelsea it's the 2nd.
No, Man City were fined £49m by UEFA in 2014 for breaching FFP rules, and had their squad numbers capped. They are anything but squeaky clean. A 10 point deduction would hurt them far more.
I'm not sure what an FFP fine has to do with exploitation of minors though, which is what this is all about. Given Man City are the only big club to have been investigated and not given a transfer ban I think it's fairly safe to say that this isn't 'big club bias' but rather than each case has been handled on merit and this one is towards the lower end.
So effectively they are cherry-picking which rules to break and when to break them. Great, that's not in the least bit insidious, I guess we should all support this lenient 'punishment' handed down to them in spite of mounting evidence that they are chronic cheats who won't stop. The reality is they can easily afford all the fines under the sun and until they suffer actual, tangible repercussions, football will be worse off.
-
Nicked one of our best youngsters too.
The compensation is a joke, the authorities should also add a % of any future transfer to it.
They've talked about stopping this since the days of Barry coming to us. It's a joke clubs can get away with it still just having to pay tiny compensation.
-
Tiny?
Didn't we have to pay £1m to Brighton for Barry? (A bargain, admittedly)
-
That's Bale's wages covered for a year then.
#welcomeGarethHale
(https://alchetron.com/cdn/gareth-hale-4cd37647-1f0a-44f4-aad8-1b3e1cc4b79-resize-750.jpeg)
Poor footballer far too reliant on Pace.
I missed this somehow. Do we still have a post of the year competition? This is the comment equivalent of Mcginn’s goal against Sheffield Wednesday...beautiful ❤️
-
Aye an absolute belter
-
Tiny?
Didn't we have to pay £1m to Brighton for Barry? (A bargain, admittedly)
Sorry, I was talking about City.
-
Whatever happened to the other geezer we bought to keep Barry company when he didn't take the penalty, Michael Standing Room Only, was it?
-
He became his agent, I think.
-
Them getting a 10 point deduction and still winning the league with Liverpool second would have been very, very, very, entertaining.
I wouldn't know whether to laugh or cry.
On second thought, I would laugh till I cried.
-
Being investigated by the premier league according to the BBC.
Sale of VP
-
Being investigated they by the premier league according to the BBC.
Sale of VP
they are out to get us ....can't have another club challenging the " big six" or whatever they are referred to
Going back to the inaugural years of the Premier League it was apparent that the "powers that be" didn't want a club outside of The " Big six" winning it
-
All they're checking is if the valuation was fair market value. They're hardly out to get us, the EFL are doing the same with Derby, Sheff Weds and Reading.
-
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2019/09/05/premier-league-check-aston-villas-sale-villa-park-against-ffp/
Premier League to check if Aston Villa's sale of Villa Park was against FFP regulations
Aston Villa’s sale of Villa Park is to be probed by the Premier League to check whether it breached financial fair play regulations, the Daily Telegraph has learnt.
After it emerged independent valuations had been ordered by the English Football League into the sale by Derby County, Sheffield Wednesday and Reading of their own home grounds, it can be revealed that Villa will not escape scrutiny after winning the Championship play-off final to secure a return to the top flight and a £170 million jackpot.
All four clubs sold their stadiums to their own owners – who then leased them back again – in an apparent attempt to balance their books and avoid a transfer ban or points deduction.
It was unclear last night whether the Premier League would follow the EFL’s lead by ordering an independent valuation of Villa Park or simply examine evidence provided by the club before deciding whether the £56.7 million sale represented the kind of “fair market value” required under its rules governing related-party transactions.
Villa, Derby, Wednesday and Reading all exploited an EFL rule change that ended a ban on its clubs using profits earned from selling their stadiums to comply with its financial fair play regulations.
The Telegraph has learnt the 2016 rule change was never intended to open the door to such a practise, which was branded “cheating” in May by Leeds United owner Andrea Radrizzani and saw Middlesbrough threaten to sue Derby.
Moves are afoot to close it again amid concerns a club could sell their stadium to balance the books and buy it back again without breaching rules which also exempt investment in facilities.
Premier League profit and sustainability rules, with which the EFL’s own regulations were harmonised three years ago, do not prohibit clubs using cash earned from stadium sales to comply with them.
However, Uefa’s Financial Fair Play rules, on which the EFL’s original regulations were based, do, acting as a deterrent for top-flight clubs.
Villa declined to comment last night but a source with knowledge of Villa Park’s sale to owners Nassef Sawiris and Wes Edens, via a group subsidiary company called NSWE Stadium, has told the Telegraph the EFL had already approved it after the club commissioned three independent valuations of the ground.
The Premier League newcomers are thought to be entirely confident of complying with its rules.
Derby, who lost to Villa in the play-off final, sold Pride Park to owner Mel Morris the season before last for £80m, almost double the amount for which it was listed as an asset on the club’s book.
That allowed them to post a pre-tax profit of £14.6 million that year when losses in excess of £39m over a three-year period amount to a breach of the EFL’s profit and sustainability rules.
Last season, Birmingham City were docked nine points after recording total losses of £48.8 million between 2015 and 2018.
Derby, Wednesday and Reading have consistently denied having breached any regulations.
-
Utterly ridiculous that when there is a club that's just gone out of business due to lack of funds, the authorities are Hellbent on preventing owners that DO have lots of money from investing in the sport.
-
I have little doubt that if we didn't have a pot to piss in and were stuck in division 2 while it was sha in the top flight having sold their ground to themselves to pass FFP that most people wouldn't object to it being looked at to make sure they weren't pulling a fast one. Unless we overvalued VP then we have fuck all to worry about so no idea why people think it's a bad thing.
-
I think post-Bury there will be greater scrutiny to adhere to whatever rules (rightly or wrongly) there are, and don’t see why this is anti-Villa. The story I’ve pasted above suggests we had three independent evaluations and it was EFL approved, so it’s hard to see any real story in this.
Obviously there needs a better owners test and probably monitoring system, though I’m sure many would argue that to be restrictive.
I’d appreciate if anyone can give an overview in one or two lines of what spending restrictions there are now in the top flight “profit and sustainability rules”, are our rich owners limited by what they can do in this division?
-
I have little doubt that if we didn't have a pot to piss in and were stuck in division 2 while it was sha in the top flight having sold their ground to themselves to pass FFP that most people wouldn't object to it being looked at to make sure they weren't pulling a fast one. Unless we overvalued VP then we have fuck all to worry about so no idea why people think it's a bad thing.
Well, maybe some others. But I've said Financial Fair Play is a load of shite since it came in.
Basically we had an ex-Juventus player and the likes of Man United and Barcelona together, terrified of more teams like Man City and Paris Saint German trying to break their stranglehold on silverware. A disgraceful piece of cartelisation.
-
I agree with the idea of FFP but there needs to be a way for owners to be able to invest, but I don't know how that can be done while trying to make sure a club isn't left deep in the shit if the rich owner/s leave.
-
The whole idea is shit. Either have a salary cap, so everyone competes on a genuinely fair basis. Or have a free-for-all, so teams can try to compete with the very best. The current situation, attempting to guarantee that the wealthiest clubs of the last few decades will be the best FOR EVER, is the worst of both worlds.
It doesn't help clubs like Bury, either. You are scaring off all the potential owners who want to take over a small club and "live a dream" of taking them all the way to the Premier League. That leaves a far smaller pool of potential good owners, and means that the shysters who want to make money out of clubs, legally or otherwise, make up a far bigger percentage of potential owners.
-
If there's a free for all far more clubs will go tits up.
-
All they're checking is if the valuation was fair market value. They're hardly out to get us, the EFL are doing the same with Derby, Sheff Weds and Reading.
I take your point PWS .....I really hope there is nothing in this and that the club were given the go ahead following three independent valuations - the present owners are savvy enough not to put the into disrepute or financial meltdown
-
It’s a quiet football news week.
If EFL had 3 independent valuations and were satisfied there’s nothing to see here - when it was done we were an EFL club, nowt to do with Premier League.
This is just a precursor to the practice being regulated.
-
If there's a free for all far more clubs will go tits up.
Well, no. Because no (league) club had since Maidstone.
Bury went bust despite these amazing regulations.
-
The PL back up the EFL more these days, so as the EFL are checking the other 3 i'm assuming they've asked the FA to do the same with us. I'd be very surprised if we did overvalue VP, mainly as it is such an easy thing to be busted on.
-
If there's a free for all far more clubs will go tits up.
Well, no. Because no (league) club had since Maidstone.
Bury went bust despite these amazing regulations.
Enough clubs had gone into administration, though. That's one thing that has been virtually eradicated since FFP.
-
If there's a free for all far more clubs will go tits up.
Well, no. Because no (league) club had since Maidstone.
Bury went bust despite these amazing regulations.
You don't have to cease to exist to go tits up. Portsmouth and Leeds are still paying the price even though they still exist.
Bury and Bolton are the first 2 clubs to go into administration for 5 years, from 2007-13 over 20 did from the Conference North/South up. You don't think FFP had anything to do with the change in numbers?
-
You aren't going to go into administration if you have owners happy to throw hundreds of millions at the club.
The rules make that less likely.
-
So all clubs should be able spend way beyond their means because a small amount around the world will have owners happy to cover the losses? And if they shouldn't all be allowed to do it and loads end up bust or in administration from chasing the dream, how do you stop it without FFP?
-
It's not spending beyond your means, if owners have the money.
In any case, the rules seem designed to fuck over clubs in trouble. You're massively in debt. If you sell some land that would help with the debt... we'll fine you (or worse).
Bonkers.
-
Do you really think that if there is no FFP that no clubs will spend beyond their means and get deep into the shit chasing the dream?
Or is it a coincidence that 2 clubs have gone into administration in the last 6 years, the 6 years before that it was 23?
-
Absolutely loads of clubs have circled that particular drain, Villa for instance. We were only saved by rich owners, which the rules try to prevent.
And, again, the rules have proven not to work as Bury have gone bust. And Bolton were incredibly close.
-
I would say that any legislation that led to a 90% reduction in a problem was pretty successful.
-
Do you really think that if there is no FFP that no clubs will spend beyond their means and get deep into the shit chasing the dream?
Or is it a coincidence that 2 clubs have gone into administration in the last 6 years, the 6 years before that it was 23?
Make it 3 in 6 years if you want to add us, compared to 23 before plus all the clubs that circled the drain 07-13 but avoided it as you're trying to include those.
-
Most of them just got in the shit due to mismanagement.
I can only think of Leeds and maybe Bradford, twenty years ago, that spent loads.
If a modern day club does that they'll be in a much better position to recover if they can entice billionaires who don't care how much they spend rather than only those looking to bleed the club dry, as those are the owners most likely to be attracted to taking over a club handicapped with Financial "Fair" Play regulations.
-
That's still not what I asked so i'll try a couple of different questions.
Do you genuinely believe there's a queue of billionaires waiting to take over clubs but don't because of FFP?
And yes or no, as far as you are concerned there is no link between FFP kicking in and the massive drop in number of clubs going into administration?
-
First question: no, there will be a handful, but there are fewer because of FFP.
Second question: a number of clubs seem to be getting their acts in gear, but there are still plenty of problems and FFP has done nothing to make things better at Bury. Or Bolton. Or even Blose or Xia-era Villa for that matter. It may be that FFP helps prevent some clubs going into administration. I'm not sure, there's been some speculation that Bury/Bolton could be the tip of the iceberg. We'll see.
Even if it does prevent some clubs going into administration, short-term, long-term it will be to the detriment of the game if clubs know that they are, effectively, banned from trying to compete. Fans will become disaffected, crowds will fall and TV companies will lose interest (in the lower leagues, that is). People don't want to watch a Scottish League South.
There are better ways to protect clubs' future than doing so in a way that prevents competition.
Examples: if some good is to come of the stupidity of Brexit than we can, at least, use it to get rid of the Bosman rule and go back to fees being agreed by tribunal for out of contract players.
When teams receive a "compensation fee" for bigger clubs taking their most talented youngsters off them, said fee should include compensation for the loss of potential future transfer fees. Again, decided by tribunal.
A more equitable sharing of TV money throughout the leagues. Deal to include midweek League One/Two games to increase the TV pot. Probably get rid of the red button Championship games as they prevent people attending matches while offering no recompense to the clubs in question, or those further down the pyramid who may be adversely affected.
And probably plenty of other stuff that more creative people than me can come up with. I refuse to believe that it's a binary choice between the same teams winning everything for all time or financial armageddon for the smaller clubs.
-
I've don't think that FFP isn't perfect but I do think that it's stopping a lot of clubs getting deep into the shit. Without FFP who knows, we may have been even more fucked as we know we wound in our spending in attempts to stay complaint, imagine Xia with a total free reign to spend money we didn't have.
Something I definitely think needs to be done is that the FA/FL sort out fit and proper.
-
I think the truth is somewhere between the 2 points. There was a problem but FFP, alongside massively increased financial deals that give the premier league and champions league clubs vastly higher turnover figures, does nothing to help and is actually now probably causing more problems than it solves. There are better ways to do it but we'd need it to be implemented by FIFA and enforced everywhere for it to work. FIFA/UEFA are slowly showing some backbone (as the transfer bans for various clubs have shown) but if the long term health of the game is a true concern then there's plenty more work to do.
-
So the PL investigating sale of Villa Park according to Telegraph
-
Here you go. Cut and paste from iPhone so apologies for any formatting errors. I think the important bit to take from it is “Three independent valuations.”
Aston Villa’s sale of Villa Park is to be probed by the Premier League to check whether it breached financial fair play regulations, the Daily Telegraph has learnt.
After it emerged independent valuations had been ordered by the English Football League into the sale by Derby County, Sheffield Wednesday and Reading of their own home grounds, it can be revealed that Villa will not escape scrutiny after winning the Championship play-off final to secure a return to the top flight and a £170 million jackpot.
All four clubs sold their stadiums to their own owners – who then leased them back again – in an apparent attempt to balance their books and avoid a transfer ban or points deduction.
It was unclear last night whether the Premier League would follow the EFL’s lead by ordering an independent valuation of Villa Park or simply examine evidence provided by the club before deciding whether the £56.7 million sale represented the kind of “fair market value” required under its rules governing related-party transactions.
–– ADVERTISEMENT ––
Villa, Derby, Wednesday and Reading all exploited an EFL rule change that ended a ban on its clubs using profits earned from selling their stadiums to comply with its financial fair play regulations.
The Telegraph has learnt the 2016 rule change was never intended to open the door to such a practise, which was branded “cheating” in May by Leeds United owner Andrea Radrizzani and saw Middlesbrough threaten to sue Derby.
Derby were among three other clubs to have sold their stadiums to their owners and then leased them back
Derby were among three other clubs to have sold their stadiums to their owners and then leased them back CREDIT: ACTION PLUS
Moves are afoot to close it again amid concerns a club could sell their stadium to balance the books and buy it back again without breaching rules which also exempt investment in facilities.
Premier League profit and sustainability rules, with which the EFL’s own regulations were harmonised three years ago, do not prohibit clubs using cash earned from stadium sales to comply with them.
However, Uefa’s Financial Fair Play rules, on which the EFL’s original regulations were based, do, acting as a deterrent for top-flight clubs.
Villa declined to comment last night but a source with knowledge of Villa Park’s sale to owners Nassef Sawiris and Wes Edens, via a group subsidiary company called NSWE Stadium, has told the Telegraph the EFL had already approved it after the club commissioned three independent valuations of the ground.
The Premier League newcomers are thought to be entirely confident of complying with its rules.
Derby, who lost to Villa in the play-off final, sold Pride Park to owner Mel Morris the season before last for £80m, almost double the amount for which it was listed as an asset on the club’s book.
That allowed them to post a pre-tax profit of £14.6 million that year when losses in excess of £39m over a three-year period amount to a breach of the EFL’s profit and sustainability rules.
Last season, Birmingham City were docked nine points after recording total losses of £48.8 million between 2015 and 2018.
Derby, Wednesday and Reading have consistently denied having breached any regulations.
-
Since Villa Park is priceless any amount paid for it is by definition an undervalue rather than artificially inflated.
-
VP valued at £56.7m and Pride Park at £80m...I know it's far newer but is Derby's ground in a much more expensive area for land?
-
VP valued at £56.7m and Pride Park at £80m...I know it's far newer but is Derby's ground in a much more expensive area for land?
Yes, it's now in a massive business park so I'd imagine the land value is a higher as a result.
-
It may be somewhere that would be easier to develop as it is in a less residential area.
-
Sounds a bit industrial park officey where souls die.
-
I agree with the idea of FFP but there needs to be a way for owners to be able to invest, but I don't know how that can be done while trying to make sure a club isn't left deep in the shit if the rich owner/s leave.
The only thing I have thought is that any money pumped in by benevolent owners should be effectively taxed. So a rich owner wants to plough £100m into his club; fine but 10% must be given to the FA. Similarly transfers from outside the league structure should be taxed.
The FA, in turn, are obligated, in a not for profit manner, to plough money into the ground roots of the game and also make it available to clubs in exceptional circumstances (Bury etc / social responsibility initiatives etc).
Sorted.
-
The FA would totally mis-manage the money. Blundering set of clowns that lost money on Wembley.
-
Here you go. Cut and paste from iPhone so apologies for any formatting errors.
Apology not accepted. I managed to paste the same thing two pages/days ago on an iPhone cutting out the junk.
;)
Interesting point Dante. Being a career public sector bod I know nothing of this, do investments usually get taxed?
-
VP valued at £56.7m and Pride Park at £80m...I know it's far newer but is Derby's ground in a much more expensive area for land?
Yes, it's now in a massive business park so I'd imagine the land value is a higher as a result.
Business parks are built on cheap land. That's why they build them there.
-
Given the developments down Aston Hall Rd it would be reasonable to take the position that VP is also in an industrial area and its value increased accordingly. Better Motorways access that Pride Park as well.
-
A property valuation is also subject to the strength of the tenancy and Villa being in the PL is a factor.
-
This reminds me of when we used to compare our wage bill to Tottenham's. Now we are fascinated by how much Derby's ground is worth compared to ours.
-
This reminds me of when we used to compare our wage bill to Tottenham's. Now we are fascinated by how much Derby's ground is worth compared to ours.
http://swissramble.blogspot.com/
-
This reminds me of when we used to compare our wage bill to Tottenham's. Now we are fascinated by how much Derby's ground is worth compared to ours.
All we need now is for VillaDawg to return
-
Ah, I miss my daily dose of VD.
-
I see CFG have come up with another astonishing way to get around FFP. 10% of shares sold for nearly £400 million to some investment group called Silver Lakes. This is an unbelievable valuation of man city as a business.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2019/nov/27/manchester-city-sell-10-per-cent-share-us-private-equity-firm-silver-lake
-
I see CFG have come up with another astonishing way to get around FFP. 10% of shares sold for nearly £400 million to some investment group called Silver Lakes. This is an unbelievable valuation of man city as a business.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2019/nov/27/manchester-city-sell-10-per-cent-share-us-private-equity-firm-silver-lake
Valuing themselves at £4bn?
Pull the other one, Citeh. You can't even fill your stadium.
-
I see CFG have come up with another astonishing way to get around FFP. 10% of shares sold for nearly £400 million to some investment group called Silver Lakes. This is an unbelievable valuation of man city as a business.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2019/nov/27/manchester-city-sell-10-per-cent-share-us-private-equity-firm-silver-lake
I don’t think share sales count as far as FFP is concerned.
The complexity of the Structure of the Citeh group is going to make it difficult to understand WTF is going on.
But if 10% is worth ( and sold for )390 million then 100 % = a 3.9Billion valuation
-
Apologies to anyone who has a soul for the source: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-7807011/Aston-Villa-threat-FFP-rules-Dean-Smith-possibly-forced-fire-sale.html
-
Aston Villa are in danger of becoming the first Premier League club to breach Financial Fair Play rules and may need to sell to ensure they comply with regulations this season.
Sportsmail has been told that Villa need to raise millions in player sales or wage savings before the summer in order to ensure they fit in with the Premier League's spending limits.
Villa narrowly avoided breaching the EFL's profit and sustainability rules during their promotion season through the controversial sale of Villa Park to a company owned by owners Nassef Sawiris and Wes Edens, which raised £56.7million.
Without the sale of Villa Park and land near their Bodymoor Heath training ground it is understood the club would have been well over the permitted loss limits.
Villa spent heavily in the summer. Manager Dean Smith was allowed to spend over £90m on new players, with no significant sales, which even allowing for the spread of payments indicates that the majority of Villa's anticipated £100m Premier League television income has already been accounted for.
The Premier League's spending limits are less stringent than the EFL's - permitting clubs to lose an average of £35m as opposed to £13m over a three-year period - so Villa are able to record a maximum loss of £61m over the last three seasons.
The club lost £36.1m in 2017-18 and have yet to publish their accounts for 2018-19 and this season, although their results are understood to have left them needing to raise money over the remainder of this campaign.
Jack Grealish is Villa's most obvious asset, with the midfield player having a £45m buyout clause in the new contract he signed last year, but the club would be loath to sell him.
Villa will not be forced to sell players next month as Smith's side battle to stay in the Premier League, as their annual accounting period ends on 31 May, giving them approximately two weeks after the end of the season to balance the books.
The EFL have previously fined Queens Park Rangers, Bournemouth and Leicester City for failing to comply with its profit and sustainability rules, but no club has yet been charged as a result of breaching spending limits while in the Premier League. Aston Villa declined to comment.
-
Oh, this shite again. Hurrah.
-
Well if we were to get relegated we'd certainly lose Grealish, McGinn and Mings so there's roughly $120 mill+ incoming for just those 3 alone.
If we stay in the PL I doubt very much we'd face any sanction other than a fine.
File this under Nose/Bitter wet dream.
-
Mixing up PL revenue with player purchase is the first problem with that article.
If we spent 90 mil on new players on 4 year contracts Say, the profit and loss impact is 22.5 million expense not 90 million of the 100 million PRem league TV revenue.
File under bollocks
-
If it came to worse we could sell wesley and still get around 20m for him. Luiz ia anotgee we could provably sell on for 20m+
Thats 40m alone and we wiuldnt neee tk even contenplate selling McGinn or jack. Even trez would gi for big money if we needed ti get rid.
-
Jack has a £45m buy out clause?
-
Sell Wesley to Real Madrid for £60mil.
Sorted.
-
Dreadful article full of holes. He talks about us having to sell Villa Park to meet FFP but then a few lines later explains how we haven’t released our accounts for the 1819 season, the season we sold VP. Pretty sure an incremental £57m will see us just fine...
add that to the fact that he already undermines himself by saying we get an extra £100m from the premier league and spent about £90 (not counting the fact that most of that will be on 4 year deals with add ons so we’re probably talking £25m this year...)
Sounds like an article just to peddle Grealish ahead of the January window given his focus on him.
-
If there is a 45m release clause we are in trouble. Someone will bid that in jan.
-
If he has a 45mil buy out clause then that is poor negotiating from Villa.
I doubt it’s that low but I guess nothing in football should come as a shock.
-
Always seems to be the DM that drags this up every few weeks. S**t rag of a newspaper. Didn't Purslow address this recently at a fans forum and basically say everything is fine and there's nothing to worry about regarding FFP?
-
Dreadful article full of holes. He talks about us having to sell Villa Park to meet FFP but then a few lines later explains how we haven’t released our accounts for the 1819 season, the season we sold VP. Pretty sure an incremental £57m will see us just fine...
add that to the fact that he already undermines himself by saying we get an extra £100m from the premier league and spent about £90 (not counting the fact that most of that will be on 4 year deals with add ons so we’re probably talking £25m this year...)
Sounds like an article just to peddle Grealish ahead of the January window given his focus on him.
See my comment
-
If he has a 45mil buy out clause then that is poor negotiating from Villa.
I doubt it’s that low but I guess nothing in football should come as a shock.
If true it was probably made when we were still in the Ch'ship and his advisors had more bargaining power. I wonder if we put in a clause saying that promotion to the PL negates the need for a clause.
-
Am I right in saying John McGinn signed a new contract at the start of this season and Dean Smith has only just signed a new contract? If FFP is an issue then I'm sure our owners and Purslow would be aware of it and I couldn't imagine them not basing the forward trajectory of our club around Jack as well.
I'd rather trust these people than a daily sh-t rag that's complicit with the media darling clubs they crave access too.
-
The club should make a statement in the next few days, stating the true facts.
-
First Premier League team to be fined for breaching FFP rules.
You'll never sing that.
-
The club should make a statement in the next few days, stating the true facts.
Why should the club respond to factually incorrect articles such as this?
It’s rubbish and they quite correctly ignored it.
-
I don't know. I think responding to put supporters' minds at rest might be a good idea. Maybe sue the "newspaper", too. I'm always happy to see racists lose money.
-
I take it we'll be deducted points next season if we get relegated?
-
I take it we'll be deducted points next season if we get relegated?
I think the general gist of it is that we're to be docked 80 points on a rolling basis until we eventually piss off to non-league football because we're not sexy enough for the Sky cartel.
-
I’m sure I remember Purslow stating, during an interview on the official site just after promotion, that Jack would’ve most likely left had we not gone up, as he had a £60m buyout clause.
So he had a £60m clause in the Championship, yet a Mail reporter reckons it’s now £45m in the PL. Mmm.
-
Yeh I’m going to believe Purslow on this one and not some a Daily Mail reporter nobody has ever heard of who is suddenly making this claim.
-
Couldn't be a bigger load of shit from the Mail for a variety of reasons.
Our summer spend from a books perspective is split/allocated across length of said signings contract length, so our transfer spend for this summer/season is approx £24m in allocation terms. Slightly different to us 'blowing' the £100m TV money in a oner
-
matchday income and sponsorship will have increased in the premier league as well.
villa park has been virtually sold out for every game in 2019
-
Rob Dorsett
@RobDorsettSky
2h
#avfc boss Dean Smith tells me he won’t have to sell any of his best players in January to balance the books, and NONE (including
@jackgrealish1) have a buy-out clause in their contracts. See #ssn
-
That Mail article's bound to be true -just like that stuff re that Corbyn bloke being a terrorist...
-
Why are we the only club that seem to be haunted by the rules?
For example, how do Bournemouth, with a ground 25% smaller than the Holte End, yet a bigger wage bill, well exist outside anywhere but League 2 and your imagination?
-
Why are we the only club that seem to be haunted by the rules?
For example, how do Bournemouth, with a ground 25% smaller than the Holte End, yet a bigger wage bill, well exist outside anywhere but League 2 and your imagination?
We are not haunted by it, it’s just a journalistic cheap shot.
-
I take it we'll be deducted points next season if we get relegated?
I think the general gist of it is that we're to be docked 80 points on a rolling basis until we eventually piss off to non-league football because we're not sexy enough for the Sky cartel.
Although all of the noses think SKY have a "Wankfest" over us every time we are on TV. Apparently SKY reckoned we were the biggest team in the Championship and didn't deserve to be there and now we are back in the Premier League they keep saying we are back where we belong. They also think SKY love 'Greasy' and are desperate to get him into the England team.
-
That Mail article's bound to be true -just like that stuff re that Corbyn bloke being a terrorist...
He's certainly blown Labour up.
-
Why are we the only club that seem to be haunted by the rules?
For example, how do Bournemouth, with a ground 25% smaller than the Holte End, yet a bigger wage bill, well exist outside anywhere but League 2 and your imagination?
I think Bournemouth may have got a fine a few years back but like us they got promoted and the premier league dosen't really care.
QPR got hit with a 40m fine after relegation.
-
I know the rules have changed a bit now but i'd imagine our fabulously wealthy owners would hire a powerful legal team to fight our case against the backdrop of what clubs like Man City/Chelsea have gotten away with and still are. I'm quite comfortable about this. It would seem someone from that rag DM has decided to single us out for his undivided attention. Gobshite. Probably a snotter.
-
Hopefully the fact that the chief exec of the Premier League is a Villa fan will help smooth over any potential issues
-
Why are we the only club that seem to be haunted by the rules?
For example, how do Bournemouth, with a ground 25% smaller than the Holte End, yet a bigger wage bill, well exist outside anywhere but League 2 and your imagination?
I think Bournemouth may have got a fine a few years back but like us they got promoted and the premier league dosen't really care.
QPR got hit with a 40m fine after relegation.
QPR massively overspent above their budget for a while, as did Portsmouth before that and Small Heath after that. Can you guess what the answer would be if it were a question on 'Only Connect'?
-
Why are we the only club that seem to be haunted by the rules?
For example, how do Bournemouth, with a ground 25% smaller than the Holte End, yet a bigger wage bill, well exist outside anywhere but League 2 and your imagination?
Nobody gives a fuck about nonsense teams like Bournemouth, Fulham or Wolves. A club our size generates clicks.
-
In reply to what someone posted here;
Corbyn has certainly exploded labour membership -the biggest party in Europe.
Some will choose, no doubt, to sneer at the election result -the fact remains that in the last six general elections, the two leaders with the largest Labour votes are Corbyn and, er, Corbyn!!
-
In reply to what someone posted here;
Corbyn has certainly exploded labour membership -the biggest party in Europe.
Some will choose, no doubt, to sneer at the election result -the fact remains that in the last six general elections, the two leaders with the largest Labour votes are Corbyn and, er, Corbyn!!
Have you heard something re Dean's replacement Dave?!
-
In reply to what someone posted here;
Corbyn has certainly exploded labour membership -the biggest party in Europe.
Some will choose, no doubt, to sneer at the election result -the fact remains that in the last six general elections, the two leaders with the largest Labour votes are Corbyn and, er, Corbyn!!
Yes, the most popular and least successful. He could cost us a fortune.
-
Except for those votey-things.
And no, SE, I wasn't advocating JC for new Villa boss.
Imagine all those left-wing attacks, though!
-
Do any of our legal eagles know whether Edens and Sawiris would have a restraint of trade case against the PL for this FFP nonsense? Surely the owner of a business has a legal right to invest as much as he/she/they want(s) in order to make it a success?
-
Do any of our legal eagles know whether Edens and Sawiris would have a restraint of trade case against the PL for this FFP nonsense? Surely the owner of a business has a legal right to invest as much as he/she/they want(s) in order to make it a success?
I've mentioned that point a few times. I'm surprised that none of the rich clubs in Europe haven't take a case to the EU. I can't think of another industry where such restraint would be permitted.
-
Do any of our legal eagles know whether Edens and Sawiris would have a restraint of trade case against the PL for this FFP nonsense? Surely the owner of a business has a legal right to invest as much as he/she/they want(s) in order to make it a success?
I've mentioned that point a few times. I'm surprised that none of the rich clubs in Europe haven't take a case to the EU. I can't think of another industry where such restraint would be permitted.
Sorry mister, hadn't seen it mentioned before. I can't see (as a wise gentleman with no knowledge of the law) how these restrictions wouldn't break a free trade regulation or two.
-
Do any of our legal eagles know whether Edens and Sawiris would have a restraint of trade case against the PL for this FFP nonsense? Surely the owner of a business has a legal right to invest as much as he/she/they want(s) in order to make it a success?
I've mentioned that point a few times. I'm surprised that none of the rich clubs in Europe haven't take a case to the EU. I can't think of another industry where such restraint would be permitted.
I think there have been a couple of cases thrown out, one Italian club.
-
Do any of our legal eagles know whether Edens and Sawiris would have a restraint of trade case against the PL for this FFP nonsense? Surely the owner of a business has a legal right to invest as much as he/she/they want(s) in order to make it a success?
I've mentioned that point a few times. I'm surprised that none of the rich clubs in Europe haven't take a case to the EU. I can't think of another industry where such restraint would be permitted.
Sorry mister, hadn't seen it mentioned before. I can't see (as a wise gentleman with no knowledge of the law) how these restrictions wouldn't break a free trade regulation or two.
Nothing to apologise for, just a way of saying I agree with you.
-
Do any of our legal eagles know whether Edens and Sawiris would have a restraint of trade case against the PL for this FFP nonsense? Surely the owner of a business has a legal right to invest as much as he/she/they want(s) in order to make it a success?
I've mentioned that point a few times. I'm surprised that none of the rich clubs in Europe haven't take a case to the EU. I can't think of another industry where such restraint would be permitted.
I think there have been a couple of cases thrown out, one Italian club.
I may be way off beam, but aren't UEFA and FA FFP regs different? If so, couldn't we challenge on a UK-only basis? (Not necessarily a question specifically to you, CL). We have, after all, got are cuntry back.
-
Do any of our legal eagles know whether Edens and Sawiris would have a restraint of trade case against the PL for this FFP nonsense? Surely the owner of a business has a legal right to invest as much as he/she/they want(s) in order to make it a success?
I've mentioned that point a few times. I'm surprised that none of the rich clubs in Europe haven't take a case to the EU. I can't think of another industry where such restraint would be permitted.
I think there have been a couple of cases thrown out, one Italian club.
I may be way off beam, but aren't UEFA and FA FFP regs different? If so, couldn't we challenge on a UK-only basis? (Not necessarily a question specifically to you, CL). We have, after all, got are cuntry back.
Interesting point SE and not one that has been widely discussed, the impact of Brexit on football. It’s the ECJ that has so far held up FFP, this could obviously change.
-
I still think the basic idea of FFP is sound, stopping clubs spending money they don't have isn't a bad thing. But what about clubs/owners that do have the money, there has to be a way for them to invest the money. Whether it involves money going into escrow or what i'm not sure but stopping people spending their own money seems as bonkers as letting clubs spend money they didn't have.
-
I still think the basic idea of FFP is sound, stopping clubs spending money they don't have isn't a bad thing. But what about clubs/owners that do have the money, there has to be a way for them to invest the money. Whether it involves money going into escrow or what i'm not sure but stopping people spending their own money seems as bonkers as letting clubs spend money they didn't have.
Agree, it’s the method they have chosen that is fucked up.
Using a trading ratio as opposed to a Balance Sheet / Cash flow covenant is where it all goes wrong.
A bank for example is not concerned if a business is loss making as long as it has enough cash to sustain operations. It’s also reactive, a club could operate for 3 years until it breaches FFP and run out of cash and go out of business. FFP does not stop clubs over spending until it is too late.
-
We had this discussion a couple of years ago and I’m pretty sure someone stated that FFP for PL
clubs only applied to those teams that qualify for European tournaments?
-
I thjnk if we go down we will get about 150m from the sales of grealish mcginn and mings. But plclubs may try take advantage of our financial state and offering less. For example 50m instead of 70m for grealish.
But if this squad with those three cant stay up what hope in hell do we have of a) coming back b) if we make it stay up
-
I thjnk if we go down we will get about 150m from the sales of grealish mcginn and mings. But plclubs may try take advantage of our financial state and offering less. For example 50m instead of 70m for grealish.
But if this squad with those three cant stay up what hope in hell do we have of a) coming back b) if we make it stay up
Exactly, our big chance was to build a Team aRound 3 top class players.
-
We had this discussion a couple of years ago and I’m pretty sure someone stated that FFP for PL
clubs only applied to those teams that qualify for European tournaments?
I believe that is the case, but that itself creates its own conundrum; how much money are you prepared to effectively waste on dodging success?
-
Just want to address all this FFP chat with a few things.
Keep seeing how if we go down then EFL will fuck us cause of FFP. This is NOT TRUE - for a few reasons:
1) We NEVER FAILED a single years of finances while in the EFL. They signed off our books every year.
2) Its a rolling cycle of 3 years. OUr heaviest EFL figures was year one when down. Next season this financial year wont be included in the 3 year cycle
3) Year 2 was the lowest loss and Year 3 signed off.
If we go down, not only do we have more money to include in the books (premier league TV cash and parachute payments), we also have a lot of assets that will inevitably be sold.
Jack, McGinn, Mings, Luiz, Wesley, Trezeguet - none of them would be staying imo. Thats £150m minimum.
The BIGGEST PAIN of relegation would be the needing another rebuild. We would realistically be starting again and needing to recruit accordingly.
-
If we do get into trouble with FFP I would hope the club will explain that whilst we have spent a fortune we did buy a whole lot of shit players, thus giving us no advantage what-so-ever.
-
Just want to address all this FFP chat with a few things.
Keep seeing how if we go down then EFL will fuck us cause of FFP. This is NOT TRUE - for a few reasons:
1) We NEVER FAILED a single years of finances while in the EFL. They signed off our books every year.
2) Its a rolling cycle of 3 years. OUr heaviest EFL figures was year one when down. Next season this financial year wont be included in the 3 year cycle
3) Year 2 was the lowest loss and Year 3 signed off.
If we go down, not only do we have more money to include in the books (premier league TV cash and parachute payments), we also have a lot of assets that will inevitably be sold.
Jack, McGinn, Mings, Luiz, Wesley, Trezeguet - none of them would be staying imo. Thats £150m minimum.
The BIGGEST PAIN of relegation would be the needing another rebuild. We would realistically be starting again and needing to recruit accordingly.
I am a little confused - we obviously spent a lot of money over the summer but it still left us light up front, and it appears (so far) that we are scraping around a bit in this transfer window.
Do you think therefore that this was by design as opposed to FFP that has us in our current position?
-
I think we've made the mistake of buying potential on lower wages. Rather than experience and higher wages. The former is cheaper & given the number of players we needed allowed us to bring in the number of players we did.
We wouldn't get our money back on most of them if we get relegated.
Smith said regarding Davies that 'he'd be a £15m player by the end of the season'. Which might have been true if he was ever fit to play more than 10 minutes.
-
But if FFP isn’t an issue why aren’t we rectifying our problems now?
-
Indeed if FFP is not an issue, the manager and the recruitment have been grossly negligent in firstly, going with one unproven striker, and secondly not having any strikers lined up by now to come in.
Most people at work have objectives and are judged by those on a regular basis, so by that basis Smith and Suso would already be on some kind of action plan or worse by now.
-
How do you know we aren't? It's not even half way through January
-
We didn't go into the season with 1 unproven striker, we went in with 3 of them, 2 are injured and the 3rd pretty clearly wants to leave and should have been let go and replaced in the summer but given the amount of work we were doing they decided to keep him until his contract ran down instead.
We need to remember that we have a limit of 25 senior players we can name in the squad. The players we had (that Smith wanted to give a go) and the signings we made left us with very little room left so we are now, pretty much, one in, one out for over 21s. No one wants to have older players sat in the U23s unable to kick a ball for the 1st team and to avoid it we gave free transfers to a few players that we knew just wouldn't work out (Thor and Fat Ross at least). We can, in this window, replace Heaton and Wesley in the squad because they're out for the season anyway but after that I think we only had 1-2 spots available.
It's not just down to FFP, it's about keeping that squad right and not piling up players with no future after the summer in desperation. I completely understand people want 2-3 players signed by tomorrow but it's not as simple as pointing at a name and paying the money, we need players that will fit in with the squad so they have a chance of coming in and settling fast, scouting them takes time and once we have a list getting the transfers through the door takes time as well.
Aside from that, it's not that we're fucked under FFP and it's not that the management team are negligent, it's just how the January window works, it's been going long enough now that people really should b used to the fact that it's 3 1/2 weeks of 95% bullshit followed by a week of actual transfers because it's mid-season and no one wants to let players go without having replacements lined up so the whole thing is waiting for the first club that blinks. The only players leaving in the first couple of weeks are ones who aren't involved with their current club and they're not the players we need (but we've signed 2 of them to much gnashing of teeth).
-
How do you know we aren't? It's not even half way through January
Next 3 league games are perfectly winnable, and perhaps season defining. You’d hope we would have sorted forward options out by then.
Don’t really want to veer off into the the other threads, my question really is one related to FFP and whether we have been constrained by it?
-
No, we're not. Our only current constraint is being a newly promoted, bottom 3 side.
-
No, we're not. Our only current constraint is being a newly promoted, bottom 3 side.
If this is indeed the only constraint it seems it was a pretty poor planning in the summer.
-
How do you know we aren't? It's not even half way through January
Next 3 league games are perfectly winnable, and perhaps season defining. You’d hope we would have sorted forward options out by then.
Don’t really want to veer off into the the other threads, my question really is one related to FFP and whether we have been constrained by it?
I am getting a bit bored of winning these winnable games.
-
I still think the basic idea of FFP is sound, stopping clubs spending money they don't have isn't a bad thing. But what about clubs/owners that do have the money, there has to be a way for them to invest the money. Whether it involves money going into escrow or what i'm not sure but stopping people spending their own money seems as bonkers as letting clubs spend money they didn't have.
Didn’t it all come from Man City buying their way into the elite group & those clubs saying it wouldn’t happen again....was always about big clubs protecting their place in the league rather than for the good of the game as a whole.
-
According to The Times: Everton are set to announce record losses in the region of £110million — but have not flouted Premier League profit and sustainability rules.
-
I still think the basic idea of FFP is sound, stopping clubs spending money they don't have isn't a bad thing. But what about clubs/owners that do have the money, there has to be a way for them to invest the money. Whether it involves money going into escrow or what i'm not sure but stopping people spending their own money seems as bonkers as letting clubs spend money they didn't have.
Didn’t it all come from Man City buying their way into the elite group & those clubs saying it wouldn’t happen again....was always about big clubs protecting their place in the league rather than for the good of the game as a whole.
That's it in a nutshell. People forget that since the league began we've always had "Bank of England" clubs trying to buy success with rich owners and no-one batted an eyelid. Never had a problem with rich owners buying a club and investing for success if it didn't put the club in jeopardy. I really don't see why a club like that is seen as wrong, while the likes of Man United can be millions of pound in debt with loans but as long as they can pay the interest payments its okay.
-
I still think the basic idea of FFP is sound, stopping clubs spending money they don't have isn't a bad thing. But what about clubs/owners that do have the money, there has to be a way for them to invest the money. Whether it involves money going into escrow or what i'm not sure but stopping people spending their own money seems as bonkers as letting clubs spend money they didn't have.
Didn’t it all come from Man City buying their way into the elite group & those clubs saying it wouldn’t happen again....was always about big clubs protecting their place in the league rather than for the good of the game as a whole.
That's it in a nutshell. People forget that since the league began we've always had "Bank of England" clubs trying to buy success with rich owners and no-one batted an eyelid. Never had a problem with rich owners buying a club and investing for success if it didn't put the club in jeopardy. I really don't see why a club like that is seen as wrong, while the likes of Man United can be millions of pound in debt with loans but as long as they can pay the interest payments its okay.
In fairness to Man Utd, (*spits, flays self several times*) they're only in debt because of the way they've been purchased, not the way they've been run.
-
Derby have been charged for over-spending.
Derby County: Championship club charged for breach of spending rules - https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/51142719
-
Ow we used a system something very similar to them about ground naming or buying . Should we be more concerned now ?
-
We've not been charged and if we were to be relegated, it's a clean slate with higher permitted losses.
-
Ow we used a system something very similar to them about ground naming or buying . Should we be more concerned now ?
It would have been more concerning if we’d have lost the play off final
-
The EFL appears to be far more enamoured with the workings of FFP than the Premier League. Which is yet another reason why we should desperately be doing everything we can to avoid the drop this season. I don't want us having to deal with that regime and the constant threat of penalty again.
-
I still think the basic idea of FFP is sound, stopping clubs spending money they don't have isn't a bad thing. But what about clubs/owners that do have the money, there has to be a way for them to invest the money. Whether it involves money going into escrow or what i'm not sure but stopping people spending their own money seems as bonkers as letting clubs spend money they didn't have.
Didn’t it all come from Man City buying their way into the elite group & those clubs saying it wouldn’t happen again....was always about big clubs protecting their place in the league rather than for the good of the game as a whole.
That's it in a nutshell. People forget that since the league began we've always had "Bank of England" clubs trying to buy success with rich owners and no-one batted an eyelid. Never had a problem with rich owners buying a club and investing for success if it didn't put the club in jeopardy. I really don't see why a club like that is seen as wrong, while the likes of Man United can be millions of pound in debt with loans but as long as they can pay the interest payments its okay.
In fairness to Man Utd, (*spits, flays self several times*) they're only in debt because of the way they've been purchased, not the way they've been run.
yeah but they got into debt because their new owners didn't have the money to buy the club outright which is sort of the point of FFP really if you believe its all about protecting clubs from getting into trouble (which it isn't). Its a daft system. I could have a million in the bank but i'm not allowed to invest in a business i've bought because its losing a grand a month, but a guy down the road who's paying a grand a week on loan interest can because he can just about cover it from his income from the business. I know which situation i'd consider more financially secure.
-
The EFL appears to be far more enamoured with the workings of FFP than the Premier League. Which is yet another reason why we should desperately be doing everything we can to avoid the drop this season. I don't want us having to deal with that regime and the constant threat of penalty again.
As someone who knows about these things told me regarding Wolves - everyone knew their situation was dodgy but the Football League don't have the time and money to handle such complex enquires and the Premier League don't care.
-
Premier League probe Aston Villa's £56million stadium sale
By Matt Hughes For The Daily Mail 22:30, 22 Jan 2020 , updated 22:30, 22 Jan 2020
’s sale of their ground to a company controlled by the club’s owners has yet to be signed off by the , raising the prospect that they could follow Derby and Sheffield Wednesday in being charged as a result of the controversial accounting practice.
Sportsmail has learned that the Premier League are still seeking independent valuations for Villa Park, which was sold for £56.7million last May to NSWE Stadium Limited — a contentious deal which, if approved, should enable them to comply with the EFL’s profit and sustainability (P&S) rules.
Villa were in the Championship for the three-year accounting period in question between 2016 and 2019, but the matter was passed on to the Premier League after they were promoted last May.
Aston Villa could face a points deduction if they are found guilty by the Premier League
Aston Villa could face a points deduction if they are found guilty by the Premier League
Villa are being investigated over the sale of Villa Park to a company controlled by club owners
Villa are being investigated over the sale of Villa Park to a company controlled by club owners
It is understood that the Premier League have yet to authorise the sale eight months on, and are still investigating the valuation and the terms of the lease-back deal between NSWE Stadium Limited, owned by Nassef Sawiris and Wes Edens, and the club. Sawiris and Edens bought a majority stake in Villa in 2018.
The Premier League’s P&S regulations are loosely aligned with the EFL’s, which prevent clubs from recording losses of more than £39m over a three-year period. Premier League Rule E.54 states that any commercial deal ‘arising from a related party transaction’ must be ‘recorded in the club’s annual accounts at a fair market value’.
Villa narrowly avoided breaching the EFL's profit and sustainability rules last season
Villa narrowly avoided breaching the EFL's profit and sustainability rules last season
Villa are confident that the stadium sale will be signed off and are baffled as to why the inquiries are still ongoing. If charged and found guilty Villa could be hit with a points deduction, although the Premier League have not brought in the fixed tariff for overspending that is in operation in the EFL, who can dock clubs up to 12 points plus a further nine if a breach is deemed to be aggravated. Villa Park was sold for £56.7m, much less than the £80m Derby banked for the sale of Pride Park, valued by the EFL at around £49m. Reading are also being investigated by the EFL after selling the Madejski Stadium to the Renhe Sports Management Company for £26.5m this year.
The Premier League’s investigation is due to be completed before the end of the season, with the authorities anxious to ensure it does not impact on the relegation battle. Villa are also in danger of breaching the Premier League’s more liberal spending limits, and as Sportsmail revealed last month they may have to sell players in the summer. The Premier League and EFL declined to comment.
-
Nothing, absolutely nothing. What is it about papers with 'Mail' in their name? No official comment. 'May' have to sell players? I won't be losing any sleep.
-
So, what is market value? For a Club that is a going concern, isn't the market value what it would cost to replace it on a like-for-like basis. In any other business than 'controlled' football, it would be what somebody will pay for it.
-
I would imagine the value for development would be huge.
-
So Pride Park is independently valued at 49m - a smaller ground with vastly less facilities than VP, 56m is surely not unreasonable:-)
Sounds like the usual Mail shitstirring rag nonsense
-
The Daily Mail raise this issue every few weeks, just no real substance to it. Yet another 'probe'
-
Indeed. Everton's turn last week. (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-7891947/Everton-dock-rival-clubs-arms-30m-stadium-deal.html)
-
Indeed. Everton's turn last week. (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-7891947/Everton-dock-rival-clubs-arms-30m-stadium-deal.html)
I don't see how any Everton deal is any worse than the Arsenal and Man City stadium deals. I think Spurs have left themselves open to a stadium sponsor too.
-
Is the Everton point that it’s not even due to be built for another 3 years?
-
I would imagine the value for development would be huge.
Not really. Nowhere near £50m in that location.
-
Wonder why we haven't done the 'naming rights' thing?
Adidas Villa Park anyone?
-
It's all a load of BS. The EFL signed off our finances for that year - end of.
With regards the valuation, id say VP was even downplayed on books for an independent valuation. Id speculate its with future intention to sell 'other areas' - land around the ground - the development of a hotel etc.....
-
Is it a pure land valuation or does it take into account the stadium's material value as well as its worth as a historical landmark etc?
I'm making this statement with zero calculations done, but you'd have to assume Villa Park as a whole package - the stadium, adjacent buildings and the associated land - is worth all that and more. £56m, if anything, was surely a low-ball valuation.
-
I would imagine the value for development would be huge.
Not really. Nowhere near £50m in that location.
I’m not so sure it’s ripe for regeneration I would have thought. Said with no knowledge of this area obviously.
-
Do we still own the land we bought when Doug was here?
-
We sold off that Serpentine land to fund the Petrov deal didn’t we?
-
Do we still own the land we bought when Doug was here?
There's not been notifications of asset sales on co.paniea house or in the last accounts, sonit seems we do still own that semi in Surton Coldfield, just mortgage free.
-
We sold off that Serpentine land to fund the Petrov deal didn’t we?
It was sold a bit before then but we also owned the old Siemens site and a bit more by the Tesco.
-
Is it a pure land valuation or does it take into account the stadium's material value as well as its worth as a historical landmark etc?
I'm making this statement with zero calculations done, but you'd have to assume Villa Park as a whole package - the stadium, adjacent buildings and the associated land - is worth all that and more. £56m, if anything, was surely a low-ball valuation.
Pride Park is in the middle of an industrial / retail estate, which adds value.
-
If I want any information about where we stand on FFP and stadium sale/value I go onto Small Heath Alliance where they all seem very clued up and well briefed on the matter.
-
If I want any information about where we stand on FFP and stadium sale/value I go onto Small Heath Alliance where they all seem very clued up and well briefed on the matter.
Their (Villa) match threads move faster than ours, too.
-
If I want any information about where we stand on FFP and stadium sale/value I go onto Small Heath Alliance where they all seem very clued up and well briefed on the matter.
Their (Villa) match threads move faster than ours, too.
Start a new Jack Grealish thread on here today and then start one over on Small Heath Alliance. Check back in a week to compare how many posts/pages are on each thread. I know which my money would be on.
-
If I want any information about where we stand on FFP and stadium sale/value I go onto Small Heath Alliance where they all seem very clued up and well briefed on the matter.
Their (Villa) match threads move faster than ours, too.
I wonder which is the most negative about us?! ;D
-
If I want any information about where we stand on FFP and stadium sale/value I go onto Small Heath Alliance where they all seem very clued up and well briefed on the matter.
Their (Villa) match threads move faster than ours, too.
I wonder which is the most negative about us?! ;D
Ours. They all think we're lucky!
-
How big is the Villa park site?
-
How do people think they are going to account for the current situation with FFP.
-
How do people think they are going to account for the current situation with FFP.
They might have to scrap it?
-
I doubt there are many clubs anywhere in compliance.
It’s now meaningless, the authorities will be focusing on getting the gravy train back on the rails.
-
I doubt there are many clubs anywhere in compliance.
It’s now meaningless, the authorities will be focusing on getting the gravy train back on the rails.
Agreed. The whole concept was flawed (by design) from the beginning. Either allow clubs to spend what they want, or put in restrictions across the board. None of this 'well, let's allow Man Utd to spend £250m every window and limit Bournemouth to £7.50 and a Dominos voucher, that'll make things competitive'.
If they're worried about clubs going bust, as they claim, the legislation should put the emphasis on owners/investors to cover the cost of any contracts agreed under their ownership, and invest a certain percentage of their previous season-by-season investments over, say, a three-year period, prior to selling the club.
Don't have the finances to cover this? Don't buy a football club. Worried some owners may not abide by the agreement? Take a deposit equivalent to the value of the club being bought upon purchase, with the deposit only refundable if the club is still solvent within 5 years of an eventual sale.
Couldn't really give a shit if this discourages investment. The fact that many clubs are operating at a loss without owner investment shows how sickeningly money-oriented the game has become.
-
Nice idea Rory.
There are relatively simpler ways to manage solvency and excess under normal circumstances.
FFP is a disgrace and cobbled together by idiots or crooks.
-
Nice idea Rory.
There are relatively simpler ways to manage solvency and excess under normal circumstances.
FFP is a disgrace and cobbled together by idiots or crooks.
Why narrow it down? ;)
-
I dislike FFP. It may have prevented some clubs getting into difficulty but for me it was always more about pulling the drawbridge up.
But if this Newcastle takeover does happen it could turn out to be a blessing in disguise. It would have been horrific seeing them do a City.
-
If the FFP rules are on this season's accounts and no further games are played, I would imagine that most clubs within Europe will not comply with FFP rules.
-
Not if it means we are up there competing with them, rather than constantly having to look to sell our best players so that the league remains, ahem, "competitive".
-
If the FFP rules are on this season's accounts and no further games are played, I would imagine that most clubs within Europe will not comply with FFP rules.
As above.
-
With Man City winning their appeal are we seeing the first step to dismantling FFP??
Think we can see why EFL only go after clubs who can’t afford the top notch legal representation like BLose & Wednesday.
-
I’ve seen a few people comment recently that if we go down the EFL will be after us for last seasons results. I thought that had all gone away after an investigation last summer?
-
I’ve seen a few people comment recently that if we go down the EFL will be after us for last seasons results. I thought that had all gone away after an investigation last summer?
Has that been on here or is it just wishful thinking from bitter Stripies and Leeds fans?
-
I'd imagine that FFP is going to be extremely difficult to enforce after this year.
-
I thought our last EFL seasons accounts were signed off already?
-
It should have been blown away long before now, whatever nonsense they spout about it FFP was brought in purely & simply to protect the established big clubs & to prevent a Man City ever happening again.
If Xia has lasted that summer & by some miracle we had avoided administration the EFL would have been all over us like a rash trying to get a big scalp that can’t fight back....as soon as the current owners and their wealth figures were known they left us alone.
No owner should be preventing from investing what they want, however anything above an agreed number ie a % of income should be leveraged directly against the owner rather than the club & proof of funding required.
I suspect on the back of the City ruling you might see the Chelsea’s / Liverpool’s / Man Utd’s actively lobbying the PL to reject the Saudi investment at Newcastle to protect their interests?
-
With Man City winning their appeal are we seeing the first step to dismantling FFP??
Think we can see why EFL only go after clubs who can’t afford the top notch legal representation like BLose & Wednesday.
I, for one, was shocked to the core by this news.
-
I thought our last EFL seasons accounts were signed off already?
They have been
-
That Bristol forum. Jesus Christ they're dull.
-
Its a ruling that could help us. Puts Arsenal on the beach.
-
Its a ruling that could help us. Puts Arsenal on the beach.
You realise they've got Watford on the last day of the season?
-
At home though. They're alright at home. Away they're woeful.
-
BBC reckon Man City ruling means "The credibility off FFP lies in tatters."
-
Its a ruling that could help us. Puts Arsenal on the beach.
You realise they've got Watford on the last day of the season?
They would probably have been on the beach on the last day of the season in any event.
-
This was originally brought in to stop the English teams dominating the European cup, which we no longer do. Shortly after PSG got a sugar daddy so they whole dynamic changed. What you want to avoid is someone putting money in they pulling out making clubs go bust which you can manage by requiring them to gift the money rather than loaning it, or setting funds aside against future wage payments.
But as it stands FFP is defunct.
-
The liquidity measures in League 1 and League 2 seem a bit more sensible, where they effectively can only spend a proportion of their turnover on wages.
-
The liquidity measures in League 1 and League 2 seem a bit more sensible, where they effectively can only spend a proportion of their turnover on wages.
It depends what the objective is.
If it's to maintain the status quo, sure.
If it's to enhance competition then a cost cap of some description is much more effective.
-
The liquidity measures in League 1 and League 2 seem a bit more sensible, where they effectively can only spend a proportion of their turnover on wages.
It depends what the objective is.
If it's to maintain the status quo, sure.
If it's to enhance competition then a cost cap of some description is much more effective.
On the whole though, (but obviously not when you have the odd "big club" like Sunderland or Leeds down there for a couple of years), most of the clubs are much of a muchness in terms of size, and average crowd etc, so I think it probably doesn't make that much difference. Certainly not as wide a differential between doing well in the Champions League etc.
-
FFP as it was is dead after the Man City ruling.
If the real aim is to stop clubs over-reaching then they need to replace it which allows owners to fund clubs but requires guarantees for those funds, some sort of escrow system would probably be the simplest way to handle it.
-
FFP as it was is dead after the Man City ruling.
If the real aim is to stop clubs over-reaching then they need to replace it which allows owners to fund clubs but requires guarantees for those funds, some sort of escrow system would probably be the simplest way to handle it.
Thats whereI'm at with this too.
-
FFP as it was is dead after the Man City ruling.
If the real aim is to stop clubs over-reaching then they need to replace it which allows owners to fund clubs but requires guarantees for those funds, some sort of escrow system would probably be the simplest way to handle it.
Simple? Explain how that would work
Then how you could get agreement
-
FFP as it was is dead after the Man City ruling.
If the real aim is to stop clubs over-reaching then they need to replace it which allows owners to fund clubs but requires guarantees for those funds, some sort of escrow system would probably be the simplest way to handle it.
Simple? Explain how that would work
Then how you could get agreement
I never said simple, I said simplest. Something like you have a % of turnover that can be user for wages and anything over that has to be guaranteed in escrow by the owner for the length of the contract. It allows owners to put their own money in but stops them running away and leaving the club to suffer if it doesn't work. How you handle breeches, etc would need to be worked out but it removes the 'ladder pulling' aspect of the current solution without encouraging clubs to gamble with their future.
There's probably issues but I literally thought of it in 10minutes over lunch as I was reading the Man City story.
-
So a wage cap based on revenue and the owners have to put the equivelant of 1 years wages in escrow?
I still can not see how that can work, literally.
-
Shame this didn't happen yesterday before Leicester played.
-
I still think the basic idea of FFP is sound, stopping clubs spending money they don't have isn't a bad thing. But what about clubs/owners that do have the money, there has to be a way for them to invest the money. Whether it involves money going into escrow or what i'm not sure but stopping people spending their own money seems as bonkers as letting clubs spend money they didn't have.
I said similar at the beginning of the year, not allowing someone to spend their money on something they own remains a bonkers scenario.
-
The first the leagues can do is put in place a much more robust and effective "fit and proper person" model: too many clubs / fans get rolled over by wanky owners.
-
I still think the basic idea of FFP is sound, stopping clubs spending money they don't have isn't a bad thing. But what about clubs/owners that do have the money, there has to be a way for them to invest the money. Whether it involves money going into escrow or what i'm not sure but stopping people spending their own money seems as bonkers as letting clubs spend money they didn't have.
I said similar at the beginning of the year, not allowing someone to spend their money on something they own remains a bonkers scenario.
It's far from perfect but it is the best option I can see available that protects clubs without solidifying the top teams and encouraging dodgy workarounds.
-
At home though. They're alright at home. Away they're woeful.
Home and away makes little odds in these coviddays.
-
If Man Citeh have been exonerated why have they still been fined 10 million euros? FFP is a joke. Perhaps our owners can flex their financial muscle now?
-
FFP seems to me a rule to maintain the status quo of the current bigger clubs remaining a big fish and limiting the likes of Man City & PSG with rich owners establishing themselves amongst the likes of Real Madrid and Barcelona.
-
there is corruption in Football, it starts at the top, we are relying on the hope that individuals further down the food chain are acting with integrity, it probably is a forlorn hope.
FFP is now a mess because of Covid and the Citeh ruling.
Where they go from here is anybody’s guess. The ruling does not make any sense, they have fined them for not cooperating ie not providing evidence that would have been incriminating, and because there is no evidence they have let them off the charge breaking the rules. The fine is a bribe but obviously not the whole bribe.
This just tells you how bent the system is, but just like our politics, honesty, integrity and the rule of law does not seem to matter any more.
-
If Man Citeh have been exonerated why have they still been fined 10 million euros? FFP is a joke. Perhaps our owners can flex their financial muscle now?
If we manage to survive this season, then I think there may well be some muscle flexing down at VP. It amuses me when the talk is about how this club owner is so rich and that club owner has got billions but the Villa owners are never mentioned. They are completely under the radar for nearly everyone yet they, with about 2 exceptions, could blow every other owner out of the water.
-
And that’s precisely why we need a scouting and management team to take full advantage. Suso and Dean Smith it ain’t. If we stay up get in a top drawer manager like Poch with a team he trusts to recruit some proper footballers. Next FFP is a free hit. Time for us to catch up if we stay up.
-
Wasn't sure where to post this but here seems appropriate, From Sky:
BREAKING: Five substitutes will be allowed next season, football lawmakers have announced following a meeting of the International Football Association Board.
-
Wasn't sure where to post this but here seems appropriate, From Sky:
BREAKING: Five substitutes will be allowed next season, football lawmakers have announced following a meeting of the International Football Association Board.
I like this, it allows clubs like us to give game time to younger players without so much risk. The counter is that it lets big clubs flood the bench with quality but I don't know how much that will actually happen.
-
Wasn't sure where to post this but here seems appropriate, From Sky:
BREAKING: Five substitutes will be allowed next season, football lawmakers have announced following a meeting of the International Football Association Board.
I like this, it allows clubs like us to give game time to younger players without so much risk. The counter is that it lets big clubs flood the bench with quality but I don't know how much that will actually happen.
Man City will be over the moon.
Whilst FFP remains in place, it means that clubs like ours but even more so the likes of Sheffield United, Norwich, Bournemouth won't be able to go out and buy lots of good players but the likes of ManU, Liverpool, City etc will.
-
Wasn't sure where to post this but here seems appropriate, From Sky:
BREAKING: Five substitutes will be allowed next season, football lawmakers have announced following a meeting of the International Football Association Board.
I like this, it allows clubs like us to give game time to younger players without so much risk. The counter is that it lets big clubs flood the bench with quality but I don't know how much that will actually happen.
Surely it will definitely happen. You're not paying 22 senior players obscene wages for some to be left out of the match-day squad especially when you can now change half your outfield team "in-game".
-
And the playing field tilts further in favour of the big boys. What a fucking joke this game has become.
-
Wasn't sure where to post this but here seems appropriate, From Sky:
BREAKING: Five substitutes will be allowed next season, football lawmakers have announced following a meeting of the International Football Association Board.
I like this, it allows clubs like us to give game time to younger players without so much risk. The counter is that it lets big clubs flood the bench with quality but I don't know how much that will actually happen.
Surely it will definitely happen. You're not paying 22 senior players obscene wages for some to be left out of the match-day squad especially when you can now change half your outfield team "in-game".
Do the big clubs not bring kids through with 7/3 already? It might give them a small advantage in the short term but long term I think it's a positive change for national football and younger players.
-
It seems to be clubs would be able to bring on 5 subs from 11. I don't agree with it at all. I think you will find the top clubs will stockpile big squads but there will be a lot of player turnover. Yes players will happily sign for the likes of Liverpool and Manchester City but after one or two years the bit part/squad players will want to move on to somewhere where they will be regularly starting games.
-
It massively benefits the richer clubs, so no surprise it's been brought in.
-
It seems to be clubs would be able to bring on 5 subs from 11. I don't agree with it at all. I think you will find the top clubs will stockpile big squads but there will be a lot of player turnover. Yes players will happily sign for the likes of Liverpool and Manchester City but after one or two years the bit part/squad players will want to move on to somewhere where they will be regularly starting games.
Clubs can't stockpile big squads, they'll still be squads of 25 O21 players. This means that a handful of injuries or bans and everyone will be relying on U21 players. Some clubs will take the piss with signing the best youth players but that's been happening for years anyway, at least now those youth players might actually get games for the club they've joined instead of joining the long list of loanees out from Chelsea, etc.
Again, short term I think it'll be a bit shit but after a few years it will be a positive impact for clubs willing to invest and work with youth squads, given that's the exact business model our CEO and owners have talked about I'm of the opinion that this will be a good change for us.
-
I think it's awful for clubs like us
The richer clubs already stockpile the best players in the world - Chelsea have been doing it for years, and sending lots of them out on loan. The difference will be that we'll be able to give your Cameron Archers of this world a runout whereas Man City will start games with a bench like the one they had tonight - Sterling, De Bruyne, Zinchenko, Rodri, Laporte, Mahrez, Garcia and, err, Carson - only from now, they'll be able to get 5 of them some pitch time.
It basically reduces clubs like us to an existence of "give the plucky kids a run out whilst we make it easier for the likes of Man City to crush everyone else"
-
Fuck off top-flight football.
-
Massively favours the bigger clubs. Shit.
-
Fuck off top-flight football.
Is this a rule throughout the leagues or just the top divisions?
-
VAR
Subs
Next is quarters / ad breaks
They are really are destroying the game.
-
Fuck off top-flight football.
Is this a rule throughout the leagues or just the top divisions?
It'll apply to every league if they want it, and they tend to copy the top ones, although non-league will probably stick with however many they have now.
-
Fuck off top-flight football.
Ditto this. Why stop at 5? Crap rule change, Covid being a nice excuse
-
Don't mind the five subs rule but only on condition that you have to make two of them before kick off.
-
Fuck off top-flight football.
Is this a rule throughout the leagues or just the top divisions?
It'll apply to every league if they want it, and they tend to copy the top ones, although non-league will probably stick with however many they have now.
It’s such a stupid decision. Football is so simple but they do their very best to ruin it.
-
It's not a small advantage. City can afford to quality throughout their bench and theoretically bring on 5 game changing players. The fact that players are more likely to get gametime helps them retain players who may have otherwise looked for a move. Clubs like Villa will have 1 or 2 decent options on the bench and the rest full of average squad fillers like Jota and Lansbury.
-
It will need 14 clubs to vote for it to be adopted by the Premier League.
-
That's right, so on that basis can't see it being approved, fingers crossed.
-
I expect it to be approved.
-
Don't mind the five subs rule but only on condition that you have to make two of them before kick off.
I'm up for it on the condition that at half time, rather than The Prize Where It Lies, the crowd get to nominate two subs (from either side) to be executed pitch-side. The Prize Where it Dies, if you like.
-
So long as we don't rely on Samatta and Davis to form the firing squad, or it could take days.
-
So long as we don't rely on Samatta and Davis to form the firing squad, or it could take days.
*applause*
-
Even bloody Everton were able to benefit from making 5 changes.
-
I see Sheffield Wednesday have been deducted 12 points from the start of next season due to irregularities with their ground sale. I hope Villa are in the clear now?
Funny how Man City are never deducted points over their past misdemeanors, but apparently still have a 10 million euro fine to pay even they overturned that recent 2 year ban from competing in the Champions League??
-
Seems odd that the points deduction gets applied next season rather than this season (which would've resulted in relegation).
There'll be at least 3 clubs pretty pissed off about that!
-
Is it a case of the Premier League clubs being able to afford the best lawyers and the FA etc., not having the stomach or finances to fight the top clubs and impose points deductions? I still can't quite get my head round how Man City have been exonerated of the charge/ban but still have to cough up €10m. Surely a fine of that amount constitutes guilt??
-
Is it a case of the Premier League clubs being able to afford the best lawyers and the FA etc., not having the stomach or finances to fight the top clubs and impose points deductions? I still can't quite get my head round how Man City have been exonerated of the charge/ban but still have to cough up €10m. Surely a fine of that amount constitutes guilt??
It’s very dodgy and probably undermines the whole UEFA FFP.
They got fined for not co-opearating with a process that would have found against them if they did. It is a sham.
-
Good. Load of bollocks anyway, designed entirely to preserve the rule of Man United Real Madrid, Juventus, etc, in perpetuity.
-
Have any PL clubs ever had points deductions for FFP breaches? Seems like the Championship clubs or lower leagues face the points penalty.
-
Portsmouth had nine points deducted for entering administration. That's the only time a Premier League team has had points deducted.
-
Portsmouth had nine points deducted for entering administration. That's the only time a Premier League team has had points deducted.
Somehow that's entirely different to blatantly spending above FFP rules? As you say, the whole system is set-up to protect the top clubs who caused FFP in the first place! A bit ironic isn't it?
-
Portsmouth had nine points deducted for entering administration. That's the only time a Premier League team has had points deducted.
For financial reasons? Didn't Man U and Arsenal once have points deducted for their players having a brawl?
-
Portsmouth had nine points deducted for entering administration. That's the only time a Premier League team has had points deducted.
For financial reasons? Didn't Man U and Arsenal once have points deducted for their players having a brawl?
Boro had 2 points (I think) for not fulfilling a fixture as they had a load of players ill, under Robson, which was the season they got relegated.
-
You're correct, I had forgotten Middlesbrough. I didn't mention Arsenal/Man U as that was pre-Premier League.
-
Portsmouth had nine points deducted for entering administration. That's the only time a Premier League team has had points deducted.
For financial reasons? Didn't Man U and Arsenal once have points deducted for their players having a brawl?
With the ref mic'd-up for a television programme full of blue language.
-
That was a different game, Millwall v Arsenal.
https://www.planetfootball.com/nostalgia/remembering-when-david-elleray-was-micd-up-for-millwall-vs-arsenal/
-
Boro were docked 3 points, and relegated by 2 points.
-
That was a different game, Millwall v Arsenal.
https://www.planetfootball.com/nostalgia/remembering-when-david-elleray-was-micd-up-for-millwall-vs-arsenal/
Soz, I was only a nipper, dreaming about what Mita Copiers could be.
Hilarious article that, btw. Especially in the description of Tony Adams.
-
It’s not just Man City that gets away with fines. Plucky Little Bournemouth on gates less than B’lose overspent there way into the Premier League and copped a big fine. QPR got the biggest fine I’ve ever seen was it £42 million or something silly? I don’t remember them getting a lot of success for that either.